document_title: Brown v. Board of Education

question_text: when did the brown vs the board of education start

question_tokens: when did the brown vs the board of education start

text: Brown v. Board of Education

text: Background

text: For much of the sixty years preceding the Brown case, race relations in the United States had been dominated by racial segregation. This policy had been endorsed in 1896 by the United States Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson, which held that as long as the separate facilities for the separate races were equal, segregation did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment ("no State shall ... deny to any person ... the equal protection of the laws").

text: The plaintiffs in Brown asserted that this system of racial separation, while masquerading as providing separate but equal treatment of both white and black Americans, instead perpetuated inferior accommodations, services, and treatment for black Americans. Racial segregation in education varied widely from the 17 states that required racial segregation to the 16 in which it was prohibited. Brown was influenced by UNESCO's 1950 Statement, signed by a wide variety of internationally renowned scholars, titled The Race Question.[4] This declaration denounced previous attempts at scientifically justifying racism as well as morally condemning racism. Another work that the Supreme Court cited was Gunnar Myrdal's An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy (1944).[5] Myrdal had been a signatory of the UNESCO declaration. The research performed by the educational psychologists Kenneth B. Clark and Mamie Phipps Clark also influenced the Court's decision.[6] The Clarks' "doll test" studies presented substantial arguments to the Supreme Court about how segregation affected black schoolchildren's mental status.[7]

text: The United States and the Soviet Union were both at the height of the Cold War during this time, and U.S. officials, including Supreme Court Justices, were highly aware of the harm that segregation and racism played on America's international image. When Justice William O. Douglas traveled to India in 1950, the first question he was asked was, "Why does America tolerate the lynching of Negroes?" Douglas later wrote that he had learned from his travels that "the attitude of the United States toward its colored minorities is a powerful factor in our relations with India." Chief Justice Earl Warren, nominated to the Supreme Court by President Eisenhower, echoed Douglas's concerns in a 1954 speech to the American Bar Association, proclaiming that "Our American system like all others is on trial both at home and abroad, ... the extent to which we maintain the spirit of our constitution with its Bill of Rights, will in the long run do more to make it both secure and the object of adulation than the number of hydrogen bombs we stockpile."[8][9]

text: Case

text: Filing and arguments

text:
Education in the United States

By state and in insular areas
By subject area
History of
Issues: Finance – Law – Literacy – Reform
Levels: Pre-kindergarten – Primary – Secondary – Higher
Organizations

 Education portal
 United States portal

v
t
e

text: In 1951, a class action suit was filed against the Board of Education of the City of Topeka, Kansas in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. The plaintiffs were thirteen Topeka parents on behalf of their 20 children.[10]

text: The suit called for the school district to reverse its policy of racial segregation. The Topeka Board of Education operated separate elementary schools under an 1879 Kansas law, which permitted (but did not require) districts to maintain separate elementary school facilities for black and white students in 12 communities with populations over 15,000. The plaintiffs had been recruited by the leadership of the Topeka NAACP. Notable among the Topeka NAACP leaders were the chairman McKinley Burnett; Charles Scott, one of three serving as legal counsel for the chapter; and Lucinda Todd.

text: The named plaintiff, Oliver L. Brown, was a parent, a welder in the shops of the Santa Fe Railroad, an assistant pastor at his local church, and an African American.[11] He was convinced to join the lawsuit by Scott, a childhood friend. Brown's daughter Linda, a third grader, had to walk six blocks to her school bus stop to ride to Monroe Elementary, her segregated black school one mile (1.6 km) away, while Sumner Elementary, a white school, was seven blocks from her house.[12][13]

text: As directed by the NAACP leadership, the parents each attempted to enroll their children in the closest neighborhood school in the fall of 1951. They were each refused enrollment and directed to the segregated schools.

text: The case "Oliver Brown et al. v. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas" was named after Oliver Brown as a legal strategy to have a man at the head of the roster. The lawyers, and the National Chapter of the NAACP, also felt that having Mr. Brown at the head of the roster would be better received by the U.S. Supreme Court Justices. The 13 plaintiffs were: Oliver Brown, Darlene Brown, Lena Carper, Sadie Emmanuel, Marguerite Emerson, Shirley Fleming, Zelma Henderson, Shirley Hodison, Maude Lawton, Alma Lewis, Iona Richardson, and Lucinda Todd.[14][15] The last surviving plaintiff, Zelma Henderson, died in Topeka, on May 20, 2008, at age 88.[16][17]

text: The District Court ruled in favor of the Board of Education, citing the U.S. Supreme Court precedent set in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), which had upheld a state law requiring "separate but equal" segregated facilities for blacks and whites in railway cars.[18] The three-judge District Court panel found that segregation in public education has a detrimental effect on negro children, but denied relief on the ground that the negro and white schools in Topeka were substantially equal with respect to buildings, transportation, curricula, and educational qualifications of teachers.[19]

text: Supreme Court review

text: The case of Brown v. Board of Education as heard before the Supreme Court combined five cases: Brown itself, Briggs v. Elliott (filed in South Carolina), Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County (filed in Virginia), Gebhart v. Belton (filed in Delaware), and Bolling v. Sharpe (filed in Washington D.C.).

text: All were NAACP-sponsored cases. The Davis case, the only case of the five originating from a student protest, began when 16-year-old Barbara Rose Johns organized and led a 450-student walkout of Moton High School.[20] The Gebhart case was the only one where a trial court, affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court, found that discrimination was unlawful; in all the other cases the plaintiffs had lost as the original courts had found discrimination to be lawful.

text: The Kansas case was unique among the group in that there was no contention of gross inferiority of the segregated schools' physical plant, curriculum, or staff. The district court found substantial equality as to all such factors. The lower court, in its opinion, noted that, in Topeka, "the physical facilities, the curricula, courses of study, qualification and quality of teachers, as well as other educational facilities in the two sets of schools [were] comparable."[21] The lower court observed that "colored children in many instances are required to travel much greater distances than they would be required to travel could they attend a white school" but also noted that the school district "transports colored children to and from school free of charge" and that "[n]o such service [was] provided to white children."[21]

text: In the Delaware case the district court judge in Gebhart ordered that the black students be admitted to the white high school due to the substantial harm of segregation and the differences that made the separate schools unequal.

text: The NAACP's chief counsel, Thurgood Marshall—who was later appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967—argued the case before the Supreme Court for the plaintiffs. Assistant attorney general Paul Wilson—later distinguished emeritus professor of law at the University of Kansas—conducted the state's ambivalent defense in his first appellate argument.

text: In December 1952, the Justice Department filed a friend of the court brief in the case. The brief was unusual in its heavy emphasis on foreign-policy considerations of the Truman administration in a case ostensibly about domestic issues. Of the seven pages covering "the interest of the United States," five focused on the way school segregation hurt the United States in the Cold War competition for the friendship and allegiance of non-white peoples in countries then gaining independence from colonial rule. Attorney General James P. McGranery noted that

text: The existence of discrimination against minority groups in the United States has an adverse effect upon our relations with other countries. Racial discrimination furnishes grist for the Communist propaganda mills.[22]

text: The brief also quoted a letter by Secretary of State Dean Acheson lamenting that

text: The United States is under constant attack in the foreign press, over the foreign radio, and in such international bodies as the United Nations because of various practices of discrimination in this country.[23]

text: British barrister and parliamentarian Anthony Lester has written that "Although the Court's opinion in Brown made no reference to these considerations of foreign policy, there is no doubt that they significantly influenced the decision."[23]

text: Unanimous opinion and consensus building

text: In spring 1953, the Court heard the case but was unable to decide the issue and asked to rehear the case in fall 1953, with special attention to whether the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause prohibited the operation of separate public schools for whites and blacks.[24]

text: The Court reargued the case at the behest of Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter, who used reargument as a stalling tactic, to allow the Court to gather a consensus around a Brown opinion that would outlaw segregation. The justices in support of desegregation spent much effort convincing those who initially intended to dissent to join a unanimous opinion. Although the legal effect would be same for a majority rather than unanimous decision, it was felt that dissent could be used by segregation supporters as a legitimizing counter-argument.

text: Conference notes and draft decisions illustrate the division of opinions before the decision was issued.[25] Justices Douglas, Black, Burton, and Minton were predisposed to overturn Plessy.[25] Fred M. Vinson noted that Congress had not issued desegregation legislation; Stanley F. Reed discussed incomplete cultural assimilation and states' rights and was inclined to the view that segregation worked to the benefit of the African-American community; Tom C. Clark wrote that "we had led the states on to think segregation is OK and we should let them work it out."[25] Felix Frankfurter and Robert H. Jackson disapproved of segregation, but were also opposed to judicial activism and expressed concerns about the proposed decision's enforceability.[25] Chief Justice Vinson had been a key stumbling block. After Vinson died in September 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren as Chief Justice.[25] Warren had supported the integration of Mexican-American students in California school systems following Mendez v. Westminster.[26] However, Eisenhower invited Earl Warren to a White House dinner, where the president told him: "These [southern whites] are not bad people. All they are concerned about is to see that their sweet little girls are not required to sit in school alongside some big overgrown Negroes." Nevertheless, the Justice Department sided with the African American plaintiffs.[27][28][29]

text: In his reading of the unanimous decision, Justice Warren noted the adverse psychological effects that segregated schools had on African American children.[30] Brown's cite of the Kenneth and Mamie Doll Study was criticized by Justice Clarence Thomas in a later concurring opinion [31] for implying black inferiority. According to Susan Firestone, the study itself is dubious in conclusion and unreliable in reproduction.[32]

text: While all but one justice personally rejected segregation, the judicial restraint faction questioned whether the Constitution gave the Court the power to order its end. The activist faction believed the Fourteenth Amendment did give the necessary authority and were pushing to go ahead. Warren, who held only a recess appointment, held his tongue until the Senate confirmed his appointment.

text: Warren convened a meeting of the justices, and presented to them the simple argument that the only reason to sustain segregation was an honest belief in the inferiority of Negroes. Warren further submitted that the Court must overrule Plessy to maintain its legitimacy as an institution of liberty, and it must do so unanimously to avoid massive Southern resistance. He began to build a unanimous opinion.

text: Although most justices were immediately convinced, Warren spent some time after this famous speech convincing everyone to sign onto the opinion. Justices Jackson and Reed finally decided to drop their dissent. The final decision was unanimous. Warren drafted the basic opinion and kept circulating and revising it until he had an opinion endorsed by all the members of the Court.[33] Reed was the last holdout and reportedly cried during the reading of the opinion.[34]

text: Holding

text: Reporters who observed the court holding were surprised by two facts. First, the court made a unanimous decision. Prior to the ruling, there were reports that the court members were sharply divided and might not be able to agree. Second, the attendance of Justice Robert H. Jackson who had suffered a mild heart attack and was not expected to return to the bench until early June 1954. "Perhaps to emphasize the unanimity of the court, perhaps from a desire to be present when the history-making verdict was announced, Justice Jackson was in his accustomed seat when the court convened."[35] Reporters also noted that former Secretary of State Dean Acheson (who had related the case to foreign policy considerations) and current Attorney General Herbert Brownell were in the courtroom.[36]

text: The key holding of the Court was that, even if segregated black and white schools were of equal quality in facilities and teachers, segregation by itself was harmful to black students and unconstitutional. They found that a significant psychological and social disadvantage was given to black children from the nature of segregation itself, drawing on research conducted by Kenneth Clark assisted by June Shagaloff. This aspect was vital because the question was not whether the schools were "equal", which under Plessy they nominally should have been, but whether the doctrine of separate was constitutional. The justices answered with a strong "no":

text: [D]oes segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does. ...

text: "Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The effect 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. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system." ...

text: Local outcomes

text: The Topeka junior high schools had been integrated since 1941. Topeka High School was integrated from its inception in 1871 and its sports teams from 1949 on.[37] The Kansas law permitting segregated schools allowed them only "below the high school level".[38]

text: Soon after the district court decision, election outcomes and the political climate in Topeka changed. The Board of Education of Topeka began to end segregation in the Topeka elementary schools in August 1953, integrating two attendance districts. All the Topeka elementary schools were changed to neighborhood attendance centers in January 1956, although existing students were allowed to continue attending their prior assigned schools at their option.[39][40][41] Plaintiff Zelma Henderson, in a 2004 interview, recalled that no demonstrations or tumult accompanied desegregation in Topeka's schools:

text: "They accepted it," she said. "It wasn't too long until they integrated the teachers and principals."[42]

text: The Topeka Public Schools administration building is named in honor of McKinley Burnett, NAACP chapter president who organized the case.[citation needed]

text: Monroe Elementary was designated a U.S. National Historic Site unit of the National Park Service on October 26, 1992.

text: Social implications

text: Not everyone accepted the Brown v. Board of Education decision. In Virginia, Senator Harry F. Byrd, Sr. organized the Massive Resistance movement that included the closing of schools rather than desegregating them.[43] See, for example, The Southern Manifesto. For more implications of the Brown decision, see School integration in the United States.

text: Deep South

text: Texas Attorney General John Ben Shepperd organized a campaign to generate legal obstacles to implementation of desegregation.[44]

text: In 1957, Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus called out his state's National Guard to block black students' entry to Little Rock Central High School. President Dwight Eisenhower responded by deploying elements of the 101st Airborne Division from Fort Campbell, Kentucky, to Arkansas and by federalizing Arkansas's National Guard.[45]

text: Also in 1957, Florida's response was mixed. Its legislature passed an Interposition Resolution denouncing the decision and declaring it null and void. But Florida Governor LeRoy Collins, though joining in the protest against the court decision, refused to sign it, arguing that the attempt to overturn the ruling must be done by legal methods.

text: In Mississippi fear of violence prevented any plaintiff from bringing a school desegregation suit for the next nine years.[46] When Medgar Evers sued to desegregate Jackson, Mississippi schools in 1963 White Citizens Council member Byron De La Beckwith murdered him.[47] Two subsequent trials resulted in hung juries. Beckwith was not convicted of the murder until 1994.[48]

text: In 1963, Alabama Gov. George Wallace personally blocked the door to Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama to prevent the enrollment of two black students. This became the infamous Stand in the Schoolhouse Door[49] where Wallace personally backed his "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" policy that he had stated in his 1963 inaugural address.[50] He moved aside only when confronted by General Henry Graham of the Alabama National Guard, who was ordered by President John F. Kennedy to intervene.

text: Upland South

text: In North Carolina, there was often a strategy of nominally accepting Brown, but tacitly resisting it. On May 18, 1954 the Greensboro, North Carolina school board declared that it would abide by the Brown ruling. This was the result of the initiative of D. E. Hudgins Jr., a former Rhodes Scholar and prominent attorney, who chaired the school board. This made Greensboro the first, and for years the only, city in the South, to announce its intent to comply. However, others in the city resisted integration, putting up legal obstacles[how?] to the actual implementation of school desegregation for years afterward, and in 1969, the federal government found the city was not in compliance with the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Transition to a fully integrated school system did not begin until 1971, after numerous local lawsuits and both nonviolent and violent demonstrations. Historians have noted the irony that Greensboro, which had heralded itself as such a progressive city, was one of the last holdouts for school desegregation.[51][52]

text: In Moberly, Missouri, the schools were desegregated, as ordered. However, after 1955, the African-American teachers from the local "negro school" were not retained; this was ascribed to poor performance. They appealed their dismissal in Naomi Brooks et al., Appellants, v. School District of City of Moberly, Missouri, Etc., et al.; but it was upheld, and SCOTUS declined to hear a further appeal.[53][54]

text: North

text: Many Northern cities also had de facto segregation policies, which resulted in a vast gulf in educational resources between black and white communities. In Harlem, New York, for example, not a single new school had been built since the turn of the century, nor did a single nursery school exist, even as the Second Great Migration caused overcrowding of existing schools. Existing schools tended to be dilapidated and staffed with inexperienced teachers. Northern officials were in denial of the segregation, but Brown helped stimulate activism among African-American parents like Mae Mallory who, with support of the NAACP, initiated a successful lawsuit against the city and State of New York on Brown's principles. Mallory and thousands of other parents bolstered the pressure of the lawsuit with a school boycott in 1959. During the boycott, some of the first freedom schools of the period were established. The city responded to the campaign by permitting more open transfers to high-quality, historically-white schools. (New York's African-American community, and Northern desegregation activists generally, now found themselves contending with the problem of white flight, however.)[55][56]

text: The intellectual roots of Plessy v. Ferguson, the landmark United States Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of racial segregation in 1896 under the doctrine of "separate but equal" were, in part, tied to the scientific racism of the era.[57][58] However, the popular support for the decision was more likely a result of the racist beliefs held by many whites at the time.[59] In deciding Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court rejected the ideas of scientific racists about the need for segregation, especially in schools. The Court buttressed its holding by citing (in footnote 11) social science research about the harms to black children caused by segregated schools.

text: Both scholarly and popular ideas of hereditarianism played an important role in the attack and backlash that followed the Brown decision.[59] The Mankind Quarterly was founded in 1960, in part in response to the Brown decision.[60][61]

text: Legal criticism and praise

text: William Rehnquist wrote a memo titled "A Random Thought on the Segregation Cases" when he was a law clerk for Justice Robert H. Jackson in 1952, during early deliberations that led to the Brown v. Board of Education decision. In his memo, Rehnquist argued: "I realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by 'liberal' colleagues but I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed." Rehnquist continued, "To the argument . . . that a majority may not deprive a minority of its constitutional right, the answer must be made that while this is sound in theory, in the long run it is the majority who will determine what the constitutional rights of the minorities are."[62] Rehnquist also argued for Plessy with other law clerks.[63]

text: However, during his 1971 confirmation hearings, Rehnquist said, "I believe that the memorandum was prepared by me as a statement of Justice Jackson's tentative views for his own use." Justice Jackson had initially planned to join a dissent in Brown.[64] Later, at his 1986 hearings for the slot of Chief Justice, Rehnquist put further distance between himself and the 1952 memo: "The bald statement that Plessy was right and should be reaffirmed, was not an accurate reflection of my own views at the time."[65] In any event, while serving on the Supreme Court, Rehnquist made no effort to reverse or undermine the Brown decision, and frequently relied upon it as precedent.[66]

text: Chief Justice Warren's reasoning was broadly criticized by contemporary legal academics with Judge Learned Hand decrying that the Supreme Court had "assumed the role of a third legislative chamber"[67] and Herbert Wechsler finding Brown impossible to justify based on neutral principles.[68]

text: Some aspects of the Brown decision are still debated. Notably, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, himself an African American, wrote in Missouri v. Jenkins (1995) that at the very least, Brown I has been misunderstood by the courts.

text: Brown I did not say that "racially isolated" schools were inherently inferior; the harm that it identified was tied purely to de jure segregation, not de facto segregation. Indeed, Brown I itself did not need to rely upon any psychological or social-science research in order to announce the simple, yet fundamental truth that the Government cannot discriminate among its citizens on the basis of race. …

text: Segregation was not unconstitutional because it might have caused psychological feelings of inferiority. Public school systems that separated blacks and provided them with superior educational resources making blacks "feel" superior to whites sent to lesser schools—would violate the Fourteenth Amendment, whether or not the white students felt stigmatized, just as do school systems in which the positions of the races are reversed. Psychological injury or benefit is irrelevant …

text: Given that desegregation has not produced the predicted leaps forward in black educational achievement, there is no reason to think that black students cannot learn as well when surrounded by members of their own race as when they are in an integrated environment. (…) Because of their "distinctive histories and traditions," black schools can function as the center and symbol of black communities, and provide examples of independent black leadership, success, and achievement.[69]

text: Some Constitutional originalists, notably Raoul Berger in his influential 1977 book "Government by Judiciary," make the case that Brown cannot be defended by reference to the original understanding of the 14th Amendment. They support this reading of the 14th amendment by noting that the Civil Rights Act of 1875 did not ban segregated schools and that the same Congress that passed the 14th Amendment also voted to segregate schools in the District of Columbia. Other originalists, including Michael W. McConnell, a federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, in his article "Originalism and the Desegregation Decisions," argue that the Radical Reconstructionists who spearheaded the 14th Amendment were in favor of desegregated southern schools.[70] Evidence supporting this interpretation of the 14th amendment has come from archived Congressional records showing that proposals for federal legislation which would enforce school integration were debated in Congress a few years following the amendment's ratification.[71]

text: The case also has attracted some criticism from more liberal authors, including some who say that Chief Justice Warren's reliance on psychological criteria to find a harm against segregated blacks was unnecessary. For example, Drew S. Days has written:[72] "we have developed criteria for evaluating the constitutionality of racial classifications that do not depend upon findings of psychic harm or social science evidence. They are based rather on the principle that 'distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality,' Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81 (1943). . . ."

text: In his book The Tempting of America (page 82), Robert Bork endorsed the Brown decision as follows:

text: By 1954, when Brown came up for decision, it had been apparent for some time that segregation rarely if ever produced equality. Quite aside from any question of psychology, the physical facilities provided for blacks were not as good as those provided for whites. That had been demonstrated in a long series of cases … The Court's realistic choice, therefore, was either to abandon the quest for equality by allowing segregation or to forbid segregation in order to achieve equality. There was no third choice. Either choice would violate one aspect of the original understanding, but there was no possibility of avoiding that. Since equality and segregation were mutually inconsistent, though the ratifiers did not understand that, both could not be honored. When that is seen, it is obvious the Court must choose equality and prohibit state-imposed segregation. The purpose that brought the fourteenth amendment into being was equality before the law, and equality, not separation, was written into the law.

text: In June 1987, Philip Elman, a civil rights attorney who served as an associate in the Solicitor General's office during Harry Truman's term, claimed he and Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter were mostly responsible for the Supreme Court's decision, and stated that the NAACP's arguments did not present strong evidence.[73] Elman has been criticized for offering a self-aggrandizing history of the case, omitting important facts, and denigrating the work of civil rights attorneys who had laid the groundwork for the decision over many decades.[74] However, Frankfurter was also known for being one of court's most outspoken advocates of the judicial restraint philosophy of basing court rulings on existing law rather than personal or political considerations.[75][76] Public officials in the United States today are nearly unanimous in lauding the ruling. In May 2004, the fiftieth anniversary of the ruling, President George W. Bush spoke at the opening of the Brown v. Board of Education National Historic Site, calling Brown "a decision that changed America for the better, and forever."[77] Most Senators and Representatives issued press releases hailing the ruling.

text: In an article in Townhall, Thomas Sowell argued that When Chief Justice Earl Warren declared in the landmark 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education that racially separate schools were "inherently unequal," Dunbar High School was a living refutation of that assumption. And it was within walking distance of the Supreme Court."[78]

text: Brown II

text: In 1955, the Supreme Court considered arguments by the schools requesting relief concerning the task of desegregation. In their decision, which became known as "Brown II"[79] the court delegated the task of carrying out school desegregation to district courts with orders that desegregation occur "with all deliberate speed," a phrase traceable to Francis Thompson's poem, The Hound of Heaven.[80]

text: Supporters of the earlier decision were displeased with this decision. The language "all deliberate speed" was seen by critics as too ambiguous to ensure reasonable haste for compliance with the court's instruction. Many Southern states and school districts interpreted "Brown II" as legal justification for resisting, delaying, and avoiding significant integration for years—and in some cases for a decade or more—using such tactics as closing down school systems, using state money to finance segregated "private" schools, and "token" integration where a few carefully selected black children were admitted to former white-only schools but the vast majority remained in underfunded, unequal black schools.[81]

text: For example, based on "Brown II," the U.S. District Court ruled that Prince Edward County, Virginia did not have to desegregate immediately. When faced with a court order to finally begin desegregation in 1959 the county board of supervisors stopped appropriating money for public schools, which remained closed for five years, from 1959 to 1964.

text: White students in the county were given assistance to attend white-only "private academies" that were taught by teachers formerly employed by the public school system, while black students had no education at all unless they moved out of the county. But the public schools reopened after the Supreme Court overturned "Brown II" in Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, declaring that "...the time for mere 'deliberate speed' has run out," and that the county must provide a public school system for all children regardless of race.[82]

text: Brown III

text: In 1978, Topeka attorneys Richard Jones, Joseph Johnson and Charles Scott, Jr. (son of the original Brown team member), with assistance from the American Civil Liberties Union, persuaded Linda Brown Smith—who now had her own children in Topeka schools—to be a plaintiff in reopening Brown. They were concerned that the Topeka Public Schools' policy of "open enrollment" had led to and would lead to further segregation. They also believed that with a choice of open enrollment, white parents would shift their children to "preferred" schools that would create both predominantly African American and predominantly European American schools within the district. The district court reopened the Brown case after a 25-year hiatus, but denied the plaintiffs' request finding the schools "unitary". In 1989, a three-judge panel of the Tenth Circuit on 2–1 vote found that the vestiges of segregation remained with respect to student and staff assignment.[83] In 1993, the Supreme Court denied the appellant School District's request for certiorari and returned the case to District Court Judge Richard Rodgers for implementation of the Tenth Circuit's mandate.

text: After a 1994 plan was approved and a bond issue passed, additional elementary magnet schools were opened and district attendance plans redrawn, which resulted in the Topeka schools meeting court standards of racial balance by 1998. Unified status was eventually granted to Topeka Unified School District No. 501 on July 27, 1999.[84] One of the new magnet schools is named after the Scott family attorneys for their role in the Brown case and civil rights.[85]

text: Related cases

text: Other comments

text: Linda Brown Thompson later recalled the experience of being refused enrollment:[86]

text: ...we lived in an integrated neighborhood and I had all of these playmates of different nationalities. And so when I found out that day that I might be able to go to their school, I was just thrilled, you know. And I remember walking over to Sumner school with my dad that day and going up the steps of the school and the school looked so big to a smaller child. And I remember going inside and my dad spoke with someone and then he went into the inner office with the principal and they left me out ... to sit outside with the secretary. And while he was in the inner office, I could hear voices and hear his voice raised, you know, as the conversation went on. And then he immediately came out of the office, took me by the hand and we walked home from the school. I just couldn't understand what was happening because I was so sure that I was going to go to school with Mona and Guinevere, Wanda, and all of my playmates.[87]

text: Linda Brown died on March 25, 2018 at the age of 76.[88]


document_title: G.I. (military)

question_text: what does g.i. stand for in gi bill

question_tokens: what does g.i . stand for in gi bill

root

text: G.I. (military)

text: G.I. is an initialism used to describe the soldiers of the United States Army and airmen of the United States Army Air Forces and also for general items of their equipment.[1] The term G.I. has been used as an initialism of "Government Issue" or "General Issue", but it originally referred to "galvanized iron", as used by the logistics services of the United States Armed Forces.[2][3]

tag: p

text: During World War I, American soldiers sardonically referred to incoming German artillery shells as "G.I. cans". Also during that war, "G.I." started being interpreted as "Government Issue" or "General Issue" for the general items of equipment of soldiers and airmen. The term "G.I." came into widespread use in the United States with the start of the Selective Service System ("the draft") in 1940, extending into 1941. Next, the use of "G.I." expanded from 1942 through 1945. The American five-star General Dwight D. Eisenhower said in 1945 that "the truly heroic figure of this war [is] G.I. Joe and his counterpart in the air, the navy, and the Merchant Marine of every one of the United Nations."[4]

text:
"G.I." was also used as an adjective for anything having to do with the US Army or Army Air Force.[2]
In British military parlance and in armed forces modelled on British military traditions, G.I. refers to a Gunnery Instructor (generally an NCO responsible for inducting and training recruits).


document_title: Gambler's fallacy

question_text: what are the chances of flipping heads 5 times in a row

text: Gambler's fallacy

text: Examples[edit]

text: Coin toss[edit]

text: The gambler's fallacy can be illustrated by considering the repeated toss of a fair coin. The outcomes in different tosses are statistically independent and the probability of getting heads on a single toss is 1/2 (one in two). The probability of getting two heads in two tosses is 1/4 (one in four) and the probability of getting three heads in three tosses is 1/8 (one in eight). In general, if Ai is the event where toss i of a fair coin comes up heads, then:

text: If after tossing four heads in a row, the next coin toss also came up heads, it would complete a run of five successive heads. Since the probability of a run of five successive heads is 1/32 (one in thirty-two), a person might believe that the next flip would be more likely to come up tails rather than heads again. This is incorrect, and is an example of the gambler's fallacy. The event "5 heads in a row" and the event "first 4 heads, then a tails" are equally likely, each having probability 1/32. Since the first four tosses turn up heads, the probability that the next toss is a head is:

text: While a run of five heads has a probability of 1/32 = 0.03125 (a little over 3%), the misunderstanding lies in not realizing that this is the case only before the first coin is tossed. After the first four tosses the results are no longer unknown, so their probabilities are at that point equal to 1 (100%). The reasoning that it is more likely that a fifth toss is more likely to be tails because the previous four tosses were heads, with a run of luck in the past influencing the odds in the future, forms the basis of the fallacy.

text: Why the probability is 1/2 for a fair coin[edit]

text: If a fair coin is flipped 21 times, the probability of 21 heads is 1 in 2,097,152. The probability of flipping a head after having already flipped 20 heads in a row is 1/2. This is an application of Bayes' theorem.

text: This can also be shown without knowing that 20 heads have occurred, and without applying Bayes' theorem. Assuming a fair coin:

text:
The probability of 20 heads, then 1 tail is 0.520 × 0.5 = 0.521
The probability of 20 heads, then 1 head is 0.520 × 0.5 = 0.521

tag: ul

text: The probability of getting 20 heads then 1 tail, and the probability of getting 20 heads then another head are both 1 in 2,097,152. When flipping a fair coin 21 times, the outcome is equally likely to be 21 heads as 20 heads and then 1 tail. These two outcomes are equally as likely as any of the other combinations that can be obtained from 21 flips of a coin. All of the 21-flip combinations will have probabilities equal to 0.521, or 1 in 2,097,152. Assuming that a change in the probability will occur as a result of the outcome of prior flips is incorrect, because every outcome of a 21-flip sequence is as likely as the other outcomes. In accordance with Bayes' theorem, the likely outcome of each flip is the probability of the fair coin, which is 1/2.

text: Other examples[edit]

text: The fallacy leads to the incorrect notion that previous failures will create an increased probability of success on subsequent attempts. For a fair 16-sided die, the probability of each outcome occurring is 1/16 (6.25%). If a win is defined as rolling a 1, the probability a 1 occurring at least once in 16 rolls is:

text: The probability of a loss on the first roll is 15/16 (93.75%). According to the fallacy, the player should have a higher chance of winning after one loss has occurred. The probability of at least one win is now:

text: By losing one toss, the player's probability of winning drops by two percentage points. With 5 losses and 11 rolls remaining, the probability of winning drops to around 50%. The probability of at least one win does not increase after a series of losses. Instead, the probability of success decreases because there are fewer trials left in which to win. The probability of winning will eventually equal the probability of winning a single toss, which is 1/16 (6.25%) and occurs when only one toss is left.

text: Reverse fallacy[edit]

text: After a consistent tendency towards tails, a gambler may also decide that tails has become a more likely outcome. Believing the odds to favor tails, the gambler sees no reason to change to heads. The fallacy is the belief that a sequence of trials carries a memory of past results which tend to favor or disfavor future outcomes. It is not necessarily a fallacy as a consistent observed tendency towards one outcome may be taken as evidence that the coin is not fair.

text: The inverse gambler's fallacy described by Ian Hacking is a situation where a gambler entering a room and seeing a person rolling a double six on a pair of dice may erroneously conclude that the person must have been rolling the dice for quite a while, as they would be unlikely to get a double six on their first attempt.

text: Retrospective gambler's fallacy[edit]

text: Researchers have examined whether a similar bias exists for inferences about unknown past events based upon known subsequent events, calling this the "retrospective gambler's fallacy".[2]

text: An example of a retrospective gambler's fallacy would be to observe multiple successive "heads" on a coin toss and conclude from this that the previously unknown flip was "tails".[2] Real world examples of retrospective gambler's fallacy have been argued to exist in events such as the origin of the Universe. In his book Universes, John Leslie argues that "the presence of vastly many universes very different in their characters might be our best explanation for why at least one universe has a life-permitting character".[3] Daniel M. Oppenheimer and Benoît Monin argue that "In other words, the 'best explanation' for a low-probability event is that it is only one in a multiple of trials, which is the core intuition of the reverse gambler's fallacy."[2] Philosophical arguments are ongoing about whether such arguments are or are not a fallacy, arguing that the occurrence of our universe says nothing about the existence of other universes or trials of universes.[4][5] Three studies involving Stanford University students tested the existence of a retrospective gamblers' fallacy. All three studies concluded that people have a gamblers' fallacy retrospectively as well as to future events.[2] The authors of all three studies concluded their findings have significant "methodological implications" but may also have "important theoretical implications" that need investigation and research, saying "[a] thorough understanding of such reasoning processes requires that we not only examine how they influence our predictions of the future, but also our perceptions of the past."[2]

text: Childbirth[edit]

text: In 1796, Pierre-Simon Laplace described in A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities the ways in which men calculated their probability of having sons: "I have seen men, ardently desirous of having a son, who could learn only with anxiety of the births of boys in the month when they expected to become fathers. Imagining that the ratio of these births to those of girls ought to be the same at the end of each month, they judged that the boys already born would render more probable the births next of girls." The expectant fathers feared that if more sons were born in the surrounding community, then they themselves would be more likely to have a daughter. This essay by Laplace is regarded as one of the earliest descriptions of the fallacy.[6]

text: After having multiple children of the same sex, some parents may believe that they are due to have a child of the opposite sex. While the Trivers–Willard hypothesis predicts that birth sex is dependent on living conditions, stating that more male children are born in good living conditions, while more female children are born in poorer living conditions, the probability of having a child of either sex is still regarded as near 50%.[citation needed]

text: Monte Carlo Casino[edit]

text: Perhaps the most famous example of the gambler’s fallacy occurred in a game of roulette at the Monte Carlo Casino on August 18, 1913, when the ball fell in black 26 times in a row. This was an extremely uncommon occurrence, with a probability of around 1 in 136.8 million. Gamblers lost millions of francs betting against black, reasoning incorrectly that the streak was causing an imbalance in the randomness of the wheel, and that it had to be followed by a long streak of red.[1]

text: Non-examples[edit]

text: Non-independent events[edit]

text: The gambler's fallacy does not apply in situations where the probability of different events is not independent. Where this occurs, the probability of future events can change based on the outcome of past events, such as the statistical permutation of events. An example is when cards are drawn from a deck without replacement. If an ace is drawn from a deck and not reinserted, the next draw is less likely to be an ace and more likely to be of another rank. The probability of drawing another ace, assuming that it was the first card drawn and that there are no jokers, has decreased from 4/52 (7.69%) to 3/51 (5.88%), while the probability for each other rank has increased from 4/52 (7.69%) to 4/51 (7.84%). This effect allows card counting systems to work in games such as blackjack.

text: Bias[edit]

text: In most illustrations of the gambler's fallacy and the reverse gambler's fallacy, the trial (e.g. flipping a coin) is assumed to be fair. In practice, this assumption may not hold. For example, if a fair coin is flipped 21 times, the probability of 21 heads is 1 in 2,097,152. Since the probability of flipping 21 heads in a row is so small, it may well be that the coin is somehow biased towards landing on heads, or that it is being controlled by hidden magnets, or similar.[7] In this case, the smart bet is "heads" because Bayesian inference from the empirical evidence — 21 heads in a row — suggests that the coin is likely to be biased toward heads. Bayesian inference can be used to show that when the long-run proportion of different outcomes are unknown but exchangeable (meaning that the random process from which they are generated may be biased but is equally likely to be biased in any direction) and that previous observations demonstrate the likely direction of the bias, the outcome which has occurred the most in the observed data is the most likely to occur again.[8]

text: The opening scene of the play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead by Tom Stoppard discusses these issues as one man continually flips heads and the other considers various possible explanations.

text: Changing probabilities[edit]

text: If external factors are allowed to change the probability of the events, the gambler's fallacy may not hold. For example, a change in the game rules might favour one player over the other, improving his or her win percentage. Similarly, an inexperienced player's success may decrease after opposing teams learn about and play against the weaknesses.

text: Impressiveness[edit]

text: When statistics are quoted, they are usually made to sound as impressive as possible. If a politician says that unemployment has gone down for the past six years, it is a safe bet that seven years ago, it went up.[9]

text: Psychology behind the fallacy[edit]

text: Origins[edit]

text: The gambler's fallacy arises out of a belief in a law of small numbers, leading to the erroneous belief that small samples must be representative of the larger population. According to the fallacy, streaks must eventually even out in order to be representative.[10] Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman first proposed that the gambler's fallacy is a cognitive bias produced by a psychological heuristic called the representativeness heuristic, which states that people evaluate the probability of a certain event by assessing how similar it is to events they have experienced before, and how similar the events surrounding those two processes are.[11][12] According to this view, "after observing a long run of red on the roulette wheel, for example, most people erroneously believe that black will result in a more representative sequence than the occurrence of an additional red",[11] so people expect that a short run of random outcomes should share properties of a longer run, specifically in that deviations from average should balance out. When people are asked to make up a random-looking sequence of coin tosses, they tend to make sequences where the proportion of heads to tails stays closer to 0.5 in any short segment than would be predicted by chance, a phenomenon known as insensitivity to sample size.[13] Kahneman and Tversky interpret this to mean that people believe short sequences of random events should be representative of longer ones.[12] The representativeness heuristic is also cited behind the related phenomenon of the clustering illusion, according to which people see streaks of random events as being non-random when such streaks are actually much more likely to occur in small samples than people expect.[14]

text: The gambler's fallacy can also be attributed to the mistaken belief that gambling, or even chance itself, is a fair process that can correct itself in the event of streaks, known as the just-world hypothesis.[15] Other researchers believe that belief in the fallacy may be the result of a mistaken belief in an internal locus of control. When a person believes that gambling outcomes are the result of their own skill, they may be more susceptible to the gambler's fallacy because they reject the idea that chance could overcome skill or talent.[16]

text: Variations of the gambler's fallacy[edit]

text: Some researchers believe that it is possible to define two types of gambler's fallacy: type one and type two. Type one is the classic gambler's fallacy, where individuals believe that a particular outcome is due after a long streak of another outcome. Type two gambler's fallacy, as defined by Gideon Keren and Charles Lewis, occurs when a gambler underestimates how many observations are needed to detect a favorable outcome, such as watching a roulette wheel for a length of time and then betting on the numbers that appear most often. For events with a high degree of randomness, detecting a bias that will lead to a favorable outcome takes an impractically large amount of time and is very difficult, if not impossible, to do.[17] The two types differ in that type one wrongly assumes that gambling conditions are fair and perfect, while type two assumes that the conditions are biased, and that this bias can be detected after a certain amount of time.

text: Another variety, known as the retrospective gambler's fallacy, occurs when individuals judge that a seemingly rare event must come from a longer sequence than a more common event does. The belief that an imaginary sequence of die rolls is more than three times as long when a set of three sixes is observed as opposed to when there are only two sixes. This effect can be observed in isolated instances, or even sequentially. Another example would involve hearing that a teenager has unprotected sex and becomes pregnant on a given night, and that she has been engaging in unprotected sex for longer than if we hear she had unprotected sex but did not become pregnant, when the probability of becoming pregnant as a result of each intercourse is independent of the amount of prior intercourse.[18]

text: Relationship to hot-hand fallacy[edit]

text: Another psychological perspective states that gambler's fallacy can be seen as the counterpart to basketball's hot-hand fallacy, in which people tend to predict the same outcome as the previous event - known as positive recency - resulting in a belief that a high scorer will continue to score. In the gambler's fallacy, people predict the opposite outcome of the previous event - negative recency - believing that since the roulette wheel has landed on black on the previous six occasions, it is due to land on red the next. Ayton and Fischer have theorized that people display positive recency for the hot-hand fallacy because the fallacy deals with human performance, and that people do not believe that an inanimate object can become "hot."[19] Human performance is not perceived as random, and people are more likely to continue streaks when they believe that the process generating the results is nonrandom.[10] When a person exhibits the gambler's fallacy, they are more likely to exhibit the hot-hand fallacy as well, suggesting that one construct is responsible for the two fallacies.[16]

text: The difference between the two fallacies is also found in economic decision-making. A study by Huber, Kirchler, and Stockl in 2010 examined how the hot hand and the gambler's fallacy are exhibited in the financial market. The researchers gave their participants a choice: they could either bet on the outcome of a series of coin tosses, use an expert opinion to sway their decision, or choose a risk-free alternative instead for a smaller financial reward. Participants turned to the expert opinion to make their decision 24% of the time based on their past experience of success, which exemplifies the hot-hand. If the expert was correct, 78% of the participants chose the expert's opinion again, as opposed to 57% doing so when the expert was wrong. The participants also exhibited the gambler's fallacy, with their selection of either heads or tails decreasing after noticing a streak of either outcome. This experiment helped bolster Ayton and Fischer's theory that people put more faith in human performance than they do in seemingly random processes.[20]

text: Neurophysiology[edit]

text: While the representativeness heuristic and other cognitive biases are the most commonly cited cause of the gambler's fallacy, research suggests that there may also be a neurological component. Functional magnetic resonance imaging has shown that after losing a bet or gamble, known as riskloss, the frontoparietal network of the brain is activated, resulting in more risk-taking behavior. In contrast, there is decreased activity in the amygdala, caudate, and ventral striatum after a riskloss. Activation in the amygdala is negatively correlated with gambler's fallacy, so that the more activity exhibited in the amygdala, the less likely an individual is to fall prey to the gambler's fallacy. These results suggest that gambler's fallacy relies more on the prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for executive, goal-directed processes, and less on the brain areas that control affective decision-making.

text: The desire to continue gambling or betting is controlled by the striatum, which supports a choice-outcome contingency learning method. The striatum processes the errors in prediction and the behavior changes accordingly. After a win, the positive behavior is reinforced and after a loss, the behavior is conditioned to be avoided. In individuals exhibiting the gambler's fallacy, this choice-outcome contingency method is impaired, and they continue to make risks after a series of losses.[21]

text: Possible solutions[edit]

text: The gambler's fallacy is a deep-seated cognitive bias and can be very hard to overcome. Educating individuals about the nature of randomness has not always proven effective in reducing or eliminating any manifestation of the fallacy. Participants in a study by Beach and Swensson in 1967 were shown a shuffled deck of index cards with shapes on them, and were instructed to guess which shape would come next in a sequence. The experimental group of participants was informed about the nature and existence of the gambler's fallacy, and were explicitly instructed not to rely on run dependency to make their guesses. The control group was not given this information. The response styles of the two groups were similar, indicating that the experimental group still based their choices on the length of the run sequence. This led to the conclusion that instructing individuals about randomness is not sufficient in lessening the gambler's fallacy.[22]

text: An individual's susceptibility to the gambler's fallacy may decrease with age. A study by Fischbein and Schnarch in 1997 administered a questionnaire to five groups: students in grades 5, 7, 9, 11, and college students specializing in teaching mathematics. None of the participants had received any prior education regarding probability. The question asked was: "Ronni flipped a coin three times and in all cases heads came up. Ronni intends to flip the coin again. What is the chance of getting heads the fourth time?" The results indicated that as the students got older, the less likely they were to answer with "smaller than the chance of getting tails", which would indicate a negative recency effect. 35% of the 5th graders, 35% of the 7th graders, and 20% of the 9th graders exhibited the negative recency effect. Only 10% of the 11th graders answered this way, and none of the college students did. Fischbein and Schnarch theorized that an individual's tendency to rely on the representativeness heuristic and other cognitive biases can be overcome with age.[23]

text: Another possible solution comes from Roney and Trick, Gestalt psychologists who suggest that the fallacy may be eliminated as a result of grouping. When a future event such as a coin toss is described as part of a sequence, no matter how arbitrarily, a person will automatically consider the event as it relates to the past events, resulting in the gambler's fallacy. When a person considers every event as independent, the fallacy can be greatly reduced.[24]

text: Roney and Trick told participants in their experiment that they were betting on either two blocks of six coin tosses, or on two blocks of seven coin tosses. The fourth, fifth, and sixth tosses all had the same outcome, either three heads or three tails. The seventh toss was grouped with either the end of one block, or the beginning of the next block. Participants exhibited the strongest gambler's fallacy when the seventh trial was part of the first block, directly after the sequence of three heads or tails. The researchers pointed out that the participants that did not show the gambler's fallacy showed less confidence in their bets and bet fewer times than the participants who picked with the gambler's fallacy. When the seventh trial was grouped with the second block, and was perceived as not being part of a streak, the gambler's fallacy did not occur.

text: Roney and Trick argued that instead of teaching individuals about the nature of randomness, the fallacy could be avoided by training people to treat each event as if it is a beginning and not a continuation of previous events. They suggested that this would prevent people from gambling when they are losing, in the mistaken hope that their chances of winning are due to increase based on an interaction with previous events.

text: Observations of the gambler's fallacy[edit]

text: Studies have found that asylum judges, loan officers, baseball umpires and lotto players employ the gambler's fallacy consistently in their decision-making.[25][26]


document_title: Above & Beyond (band)

question_text: who sings sun and moon above and beyond

question_tokens: who sings sun and moon above and beyond

text: Above & Beyond (band)

text: History[edit]

text: Formation (1999–2000)[edit]

text: Grant and Siljamäki met at the University of Westminster.[9] Having discovered a common mutual interest for electronic music, they decided to collaborate in writing music together.[10] Following Siljamäki's suggestion, they set up the Anjunabeats label in the summer of 1999 with the release of their first single, "Volume One", under the alias Anjunabeats.[11] Initially, the Anjunabeats record label was founded as a medium to release their own music. Since the label acquired the same name as their production alias, however, they started to release music under different names, most notably as Dirt Devils and Free State.

text: The original mix of "Volume One", packaged with their Tease Dub Mix, received immediate attention in various dance clubs and quickly gained support from DJs such as Pete Tong, Paul Oakenfold, Judge Jules, and Paul van Dyk,[12] after Grant and Paavo Siljamäki personally handed a dub plate of the song to Paul Oakenfold in 2000 at Home, the now-defunct London nightclub.[13]

text: Following the success of "Volume One" and a string of singles and remixes under their Free State and Dirt Devils alter egos, the marketing director & manager of Warner Music Group, Tony McGuinness, was alerted to the duo by his brother, Liam McGuinness.[14] Liam had purchased a sample library that Grant had created for Yamaha and got in touch with Jono.[15] Having been commissioned to remix Chakra's "Home", Tony McGuinness recruited Grant and Siljamäki to help him complete the remix.[16] When the group was searching for a name to use for their Chakra remix, the inspiration came from a web page belonging to an American motivational trainer coincidentally named Jono Grant. Grant had the poster stuck to his wall. The slogan used by the motivational trainer was "Above & Beyond", and they decided to use that as their name.[17] Although the group was relatively unknown at the time, their remix of Chakra's "Home" was picked over remixes by Rob Searle and Tilt to be the A-side mix, and, after plays by Pete Tong on BBC Radio 1, it reached number one in the UK club charts.[18]

text: In addition to Above & Beyond's production work, the trio also established the vocal trance group OceanLab with Justine Suissa.[19]

text: Other collaborators in the band's early stages include Andy Moor[20] and vocalists Carrie Skipper, Ashley Tomberlin, Zoë Johnston, and Richard Bedford.

text: Early productions and DJ career debut (2001–2005)[edit]

text:
"Madonna - What It Feels Like For a Girl (Above & Beyond Video Edit)"

Sample of Above & Beyond's video remix of Madonna's What It Feels Like For A Girl.

Problems playing this file? See media help.

tag: table

text: Interest in Above & Beyond soon emerged from established trance labels and new remixes were requested: the trio remixed Aurora's "Ordinary World", Fragma's "Everytime You Need Me", Perpetuous Dreamer's "The Sound of Goodbye", and Adamski's "In the City". These tracks served as the foundation for Above & Beyond's reputation[21] as one of the UK's leading vocal trance remixers.

text: In 2001, Above & Beyond produced a club mix for Madonna's single "What It Feels Like for a Girl", and also remixed select tracks by Delerium, Three Drives, and J-pop artist Ayumi Hamasaki.

text: In 2002, Above & Beyond made their DJ debut[22] in Tokyo performing for 8,000 clubbers alongside Ferry Corsten and Tiësto.[23] As their fan base increased, the trio began to make regular appearances at some of the world's largest music festivals and clubs, including Rockness,[24] Glastonbury[25] and Creamfields[26] in the UK and Amnesia in Ibiza, Spain.

text: In 2003, Above & Beyond remixed DJ Tomcraft's "Loneliness", Motorcycle's "As the Rush Comes", as well as being asked back by Madonna to remix "Nobody Knows Me". Other remixes included Britney Spears' single "Everytime", Dido's "Sand in My Shoes", and Delerium's "Silence".

text: Above & Beyond's single "No One On Earth", featuring the vocals of Zoë Johnston, soon followed. It was voted Tune of the Year for 2004 in Armin van Buuren's trance radio show A State of Trance.[27]

text: In 2004, OceanLab's fourth single, "Satellite", was released. Known to be one of their break-through tracks in the early days of producing, it reached #19 on the UK chart in May 2004.[28]

text: Tri-State era (2006–2009)[edit]

text: In 2006, Above & Beyond released their debut artist album, Tri-State. UK-based DJ Magazine gave the album a five-star review, saying, "A blend of sleek electronic rhythms, lush filmic textures and old-fashioned song writing. Tri-State is the fulfillment of any dance act's ultimate album aspiration: a padding-free, skilled, diverse long-player. In a word, 'Brilliant. 5/5'."[29]

text: Singles from the album include "Air for Life", with Andy Moor, which won Best Underground Dance Track at the 2006 Miami Winter Music Conference[30] and was named Tune of the Year for 2005, as voted by the listeners of Armin van Buuren's radio show A State of Trance.[31] "Alone Tonight", featuring Richard Bedford, was nominated for best progressive house/trance track at the 22nd International Dance Music Awards held at the 2007 Miami WMC,[32] reaching #4 in the Finland National Singles chart[33] and #5 in the UK Dance Chart. Above & Beyond performed "Alone Tonight" at the Global Gathering 2005 broadcast live on Radio One in the UK. Their single "Can't Sleep" was included on A State of Trance's episode 280, which featured at #3 on the best 20 tracks of 2006, according to the fans that voted in its polls.[34] The Above & Beyond Club Mix of their track "Good for Me", featuring Zoë Johnston, was also voted Tune of the Year in 2006 on Van Buuren's A State of Trance.[34] In 2008, Above & Beyond won Best Underground Dance Track at the IDMA Awards at the Winter Music Conference with their Above & Beyond Club Mix of their single "Home".[35]

text: On 31 December 2007, Above & Beyond unofficially hosted their largest show ever on Barra Beach, Rio de Janeiro, where they reportedly played to an estimated one million people.[36]

text: In 2009, Above & Beyond performed at the official launch of Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo. The event took place in the Mojave Desert and was hosted by Sir Richard Branson and attended by Arnold Schwarzenegger.[37] The performance was secured after Above & Beyond's Buzz Aldrin-sampling club track "Buzz" was picked by Virgin to soundtrack the unveiling of the spaceship itself.[38]

text: Group Therapy era (2010–2014)[edit]

text: The first single to be heard from Above & Beyond's second artist album, Group Therapy, was "Thing Called Love", featuring vocals from Richard Bedford. It is featured in the Anjunabeats Volume 8 compilation album released on 19 July 2010. After months of writing, refining, and perfecting, The hugely anticipated album Group Therapy was released to widespread critical acclaim on 6 June 2011. Hitting #1 in the iTunes Dance Album charts, the album was also hugely well received by the dance music press.[39] DJ Magazine put the three members of Above & Beyond on the cover of their May issue, describing them as the "biggest DJ/production collective the UK has ever produced."[40] Mixmag hailed the album as "Artist Album of the Year".[41] The album contains downtempo moments, such as the classical piano-influenced opening track "Filmic" and the reflective "Only a Few Things", featuring Zoë Johnston, as well as more uptempo club tracks such as "Sun & Moon", "Thing Called Love", and "Prelude". All songs are written and produced by Above & Beyond, with Richard Bedford and Zoë Johnston providing vocals.

text: The first official radio single from the album, "Sun & Moon", featuring vocals from Richard Bedford, became a favorite of BBC Radio 1 personality Vernon Kay and ended up on the station's B-List,[42] an achievement that was also followed by their second radio single, "Thing Called Love", which also featured Richard Bedford.[43] Each single release from the album was accompanied by an Above & Beyond Club Mix, which ordinarily takes the essence of the original song and reworks it for Above & Beyond's peak-time DJ sets,[44] adding more traditional progressive trance and house music elements.←[citation needed] In 2017, Billboard named "Sun & Moon" the number-one saddest dance music song of all-time.[45]

text: In 2012, Above & Beyond embarked on its Group Therapy World Tour, performing sold-out shows at select venues and clubs across North America,[46] Europe, Asia and Australia.[47][48] The group also made their debut in Hawaii, performing at the Kaka’ako Waterfront Park in Honolulu.[49] In August 2012, Above & Beyond appeared on the cover of Mixmag and performed a live set at Mixmag Headquarters along with Mat Zo. The 2-hour set was subsequently released as an exclusive label showcase mix titled United Colours of Anjunabeats.[50]

text: In 2013, Above & Beyond continued to headline and perform at several dance music festivals, including Ultra Music Festival,[51] Electric Daisy Carnival,[52] Electric Forest,[53] Tomorrowland[54] and Stereosonic.[55] The group also performed their first-ever acoustic shows at Porchester Hall in London and The Greek Theater in Los Angeles,[56] featuring Zoë Johnston, Alex Vargas and Annie Drury, among other special guests including Skrillex.[57] On 26 October 2013, Above & Beyond celebrated Episode 050 of Group Therapy Radio (their 500th radio show overall) at Alexandra Palace in London with a live 6-hour broadcast.[58]

text: On 18 October 2014, Above & Beyond celebrated Episode 100 of Group Therapy Radio at Madison Square Garden in New York City with a live broadcast. Ilan Bluestone opened the show, followed by Andrew Bayer and Mat Zo, respectively. Above & Beyond then took the stage and performed a 2-hour set. During the set, they debuted new music from their up-and-coming album We Are All We Need.[59] The previous day, 17 October, Above & Beyond had debuted the new video for the title track of We Are All We Need in Time Square. They narrowly missed arrest when, after inviting fans to come out and view the video, hundreds turned out in droves.[60] Police on horseback were summoned to the location, as traffic was beginning to become blocked.[61]

text: Acoustic, We Are All We Need, and Acoustic II (2014–2016)[edit]

text: Following acoustic shows in London and Los Angeles, Above & Beyond premiered the concert film Live From Porchester Hall on 24 January 2014 across the world. Then the studio album, Acoustic, was released on 28 January 2014.[62] Tony McGuinness wrote:

text: "The acoustic project is a reconnection with the musicians that we were before we met ... the songs have been on an interesting journey to get here because we tend to write in a fairly acoustic way anyway. We don't just stick a bit of vocal over a dance track - that's not how we work. We try to start with a song and it's usually only later down the line that we take certain elements from that song and progress them into a more dancefloor-friendly version."[63]

text: A special edition of Acoustic was also released, containing a DVD of the concert film in London, a photographic journal, and signed commentary from all members of the band. A limited press double vinyl edition was later released on 17 March 2014.[64][65]

text: During their acoustic shows at Porchester Hall, Above & Beyond announced that their third artist album would be released sometime in 2014. Vocalists Alex Vargas and Justine Suissa have been confirmed as collaborators on new material.[66]

text: On 14 October 2014, Above & Beyond announced their fourth artist album, We Are All We Need, which was released on 19 January 2015 (20 January 2015 in the US & Canada).[67]

text: On 26 September 2015, the group announced that a second acoustic album, Acoustic II, would be released on June 3, 2016. A world tour with dates across Europe, North America, and Australia was scheduled in support of the new material. The tour featured artists Zoë Johnston, Justine Suissa, Cobi, and Natalie Holmes.[68][69]

text: Common Ground (2017–present)[edit]

text: On 4 August 2017, Above & Beyond released the single "Tightrope" featuring Marty Longstaff.[70] Then on 8 September 2017, Above & Beyond released the single "My Own Hymn" featuring long-time collaborator Zoë Johnston.[71] Both singles were revealed to be from Above & Beyond's sixth studio album Common Ground, which will be released on 26 January 2018 on Anjunabeats.[72]

text: On 3 November 2017, the single "Northern Soul" was released, becoming the first Above & Beyond single to feature Richard Bedford on vocals since Black Room Boy in 2013.

text: Radio shows[edit]

text: Above & Beyond produce a weekly show, and have produced several radio shows since 2004, including Anjunabeats Worldwide. Currently, Above & Beyond produce a weekly radio show called Group Therapy Radio in which the trio take turns hosting the weekly show. The show lasts for two hours, where the last half an hour is filled with a guest mix by a guest DJ. Group Therapy is broadcast every Friday at 7pm UTC +1. It is broadcast on several media, including YouTube, Twitch and as of late also Facebook.

text: Trance Around the World (2004–2012)[edit]

text: Trance Around the World was a weekly radio show comprising a total number of 450 episodes from 2004 to 2012. It reached an audience of 30 million listeners in 35 countries weekly, making it one of the most listened to radio shows in the world.[73] TATW also served as a platform to promote new artists on Above & Beyond's renowned Anjunabeats label. There have been various special episodes of TATW, including live Above & Beyond sets from festivals and radio episodic milestones, such as Episode 400, which was celebrated in November 2011 in Beirut, Lebanon. Trance Around the World ended its nine-year broadcast in November 2012, celebrating Episode 450 in Bangalore, India.

text: Group Therapy Radio (2012–present)[edit]

text: On 5 November 2012, Above & Beyond announced the launch of Group Therapy Radio, successor to Trance Around the World. Episode 001 was broadcast concurrently during Trance Around the World, Episode 450. Every 50 episodes is celebrated, by hosting a big show. These shows are held in a different country every time.[74] ABGT 100 took place in Madison Square Garden in NYC. On 26 September 2015, Above & Beyond held their 150th episode of Group Therapy Radio through their mainstage event at Sydney, Australia at the Allphones Arena. On 23 May 2016, Above & Beyond announced during their live broadcast, that ABGT 200 would be held in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. ABGT 200 took place on 24 September 2016 at the Ziggo Dome in Amsterdam. On March 17, 2017, it was announced that ABGT 250 would be held at The Gorge Amphitheatre in George, Washington on the 16th & 17 September 2017.[75]

text: Other radio appearances[edit]

text: Since 2004, Above & Beyond have appeared numerous times on BBC Radio 1's Essential Mix. In 2004 and 2011, their guest mixes were voted as Essential Mix of the Year. On 24 January 2014, the group was inducted into Pete Tong's Hall of Fame.[76] They are the only artist to have ever won the Essential Mix of the Year twice.

text: Discography[edit]

text:
Tri-State (2006)
Group Therapy (2011)
Acoustic (2014)
We Are All We Need (2015)
Acoustic II (2016)
Common Ground (2018)

text: As OceanLab

text: Sirens of the Sea (2008)

text: Awards and nominations[edit]

text: List of awards and nominations received by Above & Beyond.

text: A State of Trance[edit]

text:
Year
Nominated Work
Category
Result

2004

"No One On Earth" (Gabriel & Dresden Vocal Mix)[77]
(feat. Zoë Johnston)

Tune of the Year

Won

2005

"Air for Life" (Original Mix)[31]
(feat. Andy Moor)

Tune of the Year

Won

2006

"Good for Me" (Club Mix)[34]
(feat. Zoë Johnston)

Tune of the Year

Won

text: BBC Radio[edit]

text:
Year
Nominated Artist
Category
Result

2004[78]

Above & Beyond

Essential Mix of the Year

Won

2011[79]

Won

text: Beatport Music Awards[edit]

text:
Year
Nominated Work
Category
Result

2009[80]

Above & Beyond

Best Trance Artist

Nominated

2010[81]

Nominated

2014[82]

Anjunabeats

Label of the Year

Nominated

text: DJ Awards (Ibiza)[edit]

text:
Year
Nominated Work
Category
Result

2007[83]

Above & Beyond

Trance

Nominated

2008[84]

Nominated

2009[85]

Nominated

2010[86]

Nominated

2012[87]

Nominated

2013[88]

Nominated

2014[89]

Nominated

2015[90]

Nominated

text: DJ Magazine[edit]

text: Top 100 DJs ranking[edit]

text:
Year
Result

2004[91]

#39 (Debut)

2005[92]

#19

2006[93]

#9

2007[94]

#6

2008[95]

#4

2009[96]

#4

2010[97]

#5

2011[98]

#5

2012[99]

#8

2013[100]

#17

2014[101]

#25

2015[102]

#29

2016[103]

#47

2017[104]

#27

text: Grammy Awards[edit]

text:
Year
Nominated Work
Category
Result

2016[105]

"We're All We Need" (feat. Zoë Johnston)

Best Dance Recording

Nominated

text: International Dance Music Awards[edit]

text:
Year
Nominated Work
Category
Result

2005[106]

"No One On Earth" (feat. Zoë Johnston)
Best Hi-NRG / Euro Track
Nominated

Above & Beyond
Best Remixer
Nominated

Best Dance Artist Group
Nominated

2006[30]

"Air for Life" (with Andy Moor)
Best Underground Dance Track
Won

Best Progressive House / Trance Track
Nominated

Above & Beyond
Ortofon Best European DJ Award
Nominated

Anjunabeats Volume 3
Best Full Length DJ Mix CD
Nominated

Anjunabeats
Best Global Dance Record Label
Nominated

2007[107]

"Alone Tonight" (feat. Richard Bedford)
Best Progressive House / Trance Track
Nominated

Above & Beyond
Best Producer
Nominated

Anjunabeats Worldwide Volume 1
Best CD Compilation
Nominated

2008[108]

"Home" (feat. Hannah Thomas)
Best Underground Dance Track
Won

Anjunabeats Volume 5
Best Full Length DJ Mix
Nominated

Above & Beyond
Best Producer
Nominated

Best Dance Artist (Group)
Nominated

2009[109]

Above & Beyond
Best European DJ
Nominated

Best Global DJ
Nominated

Best Producer
Nominated

Best Artist (Group)
Nominated

Above & Beyond (for Trance Around the World)
Best Radio Mix Show DJ
Nominated

Anjunabeats Volume 6
Best Full Length DJ Mix
Nominated

Trance Around the World
Best Podcast
Nominated

Anjunabeats
Best Global Record Label
Nominated

2010[110]

"On a Good Day" (Above & Beyond pres. OceanLab)
Best Hi-NRG / Euro Track
Nominated

Best Trance Track
Nominated

Above & Beyond
Best European DJ
Nominated

Best Global DJ
Nominated

Best Producer
Nominated

Best Artist (Group)
Nominated

Above & Beyond (for Trance Around the World)
Best Radio Mix Show DJ
Nominated

Anjunabeats Volume 7
Best Full Length DJ Mix
Nominated

Trance Around the World
Best Podcast
Nominated

Anjunabeats
Best Global Record Label
Nominated

2011[111]

Above & Beyond
Best European DJ
Nominated

Best Artist (Group)
Nominated

Above & Beyond (for Trance Around the World)
Best Radio Mix Show DJ
Nominated

Anjunabeats Volume 8
Best Full Length DJ Mix
Nominated

Trance Around the World
Best Podcast
Nominated

2012[112]

Above & Beyond
Best European DJ
Nominated

Best Artist (Group)
Nominated

"Sun & Moon" (feat. Richard Bedford)
Best Trance Track
Nominated

Above & Beyond (for Trance Around the World)
Best Radio Mix Show DJ
Nominated

Anjunabeats
Best Global Record Label
Nominated

2013[113]

Above & Beyond
Best European DJ
Nominated

2014[114]

Above & Beyond
Best Artist (Group)
Nominated

Best Trance DJ
Nominated

"Walter White"
Best Trance Track
Nominated

Above & Beyond (for Group Therapy Radio)
Best Podcast or Radio Mixshow DJ
Nominated

Anjunabeats Volume 10
Best Compilation or Full Length DJ Mix
Nominated

2015[115]

Above & Beyond
Best Trance DJ
Nominated

Anjunabeats
Best Global Record Label
Nominated

text: Mixmag[edit]

text:
Year
Nominated Act
Category
Result

2012[116]

Above & Beyond

Greatest Dance Act of All Time

#19

text: NRJ Music Awards[edit]

text:
Year
Awards
Category
Recipient
Outcome
Ref

2016
NRJ Music Awards
Best Collaboration of the Year

Above & Beyond

Nominated
[117]