DBQ: THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT Directions: The following question requires you to construct a coherent essay that integrates your interpretation of Documents A-F and your knowledge of the period referred to in the question. In your 5 paragraph essay, you should strive to support your assertions both by citing key pieces of evidence from the documents and by drawing on your knowledge of the period. DBQ Prompt: Evaluate the effectiveness of the differing strategies of the Civil Rights Movement. Exceeds Meets Approaching Contextualization 5 Points: The introductory paragraph relates to the topic of the prompt to broader historical events, developments, or processes that occurred before, during or continued after the time frame of the question in great detail. 3 Points: The introductory paragraph partially relates to the topic of the prompt to broader historical events, developments, or processes that occurred before, during or continued after the time frame of the question but lacks full details. 1 Point: The writer merely wrote a phrase or reference that does not connect to the thesis. Thesis 5 Points: Definitively answers the question and establishes a defensible line of reasoning 3 Points: Definitively answers the question 1 Points: Attempts to answer the question Document Analysis Doc #1 10 Points: Correctly describes, evaluates, and explains the content of the document and successfully uses it to defend the thesis 5 Points: Correctly describes, evaluates, and explains the content of the document 3 Points: Incorporates the correct supporting document but does not correctly interpret its meaning Doc #2 10 Points: Correctly describes, evaluates, and explains the content of the document and successfully uses it to defend the thesis 5 Points: Correctly describes, evaluates, and explains the content of the document 3 Points: Incorporates the correct supporting document but does not correctly interpret its meaning Doc #3 10 Points: Correctly describes, evaluates, and explains the content of the document and successfully uses it to defend the thesis 5 Points: Correctly describes, evaluates, and explains the content of the document 3 Points: Incorporates the correct supporting document but does not correctly interpret its meaning Conclusion 5 Points: Reinforces the thesis and supporting arguments and demonstrates a complex understanding of the issues 3 Points: Rephrases and reinforces the thesis and the arguments presented 1 Point: Reiterates the thesis but does not rephrase or expand the arguments Citations 5 Points: Correctly cites all documents referenced 3 Points: All documents included are cited but are not all formatted correctly 1 Point: Some citations are included but are not formatted correctly Document A Source: Earl Warren, Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, 1954 “Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the Negro group...Any language in contrary to this finding is rejected. We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” Document B Source: Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter From a Birmingham Jail discussing Civil Disobedience You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, it is rather strange and paradoxical to find us consciously breaking laws. One may well ask, "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer is found in the fact that there are two types of laws: there are just laws, and there are unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "An unjust law is no law at all." Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine when a law is just or unjust? A just law is a manmade code that squares with the moral law, or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. . . Document C Source: August 25, 1965: Voter Registration at the Magnolia Motel, in Mississippi, following the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 Document D Source: Sit-In at a Woolworth in Greensboro, North Carolina, Feb. 1, 1960 Document E Source: Mississippi Economic Council, Statement on the Civil Rights Law, 1965 The Mississippi Economic Council, since it was organized in 1949, has been concerned with the economic and social well-being of our state. This means that it is concerned with the peace and tranquility of our state. The recent passage of certain federal legislation creates monumental problems for Mississippians. The Council opposed passage of the Civil Rights Act, but as a leadership organization it cannot bury its head in the sand and ignore its existence. . . . We recognize that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has been enacted by the Congress as law. It cannot be ignored and should not be unlawfully defied. Resistance to the law should be through established procedures in the American tradition of resort to enlightened public opinion, the ballot boxes, and the courts. We should adjust ourselves to the impact of this legislation regardless of personal feelings and convictions and limit our resistance to the stated methods. Document F Source: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer-- (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.