Discovery of the DNA Double Helix
Rosalind Franklin
Rosalind Elsie Franklin (25 July 192016 April 1958) was an English physical chemist and crystallographer who made important contributions to the understanding of the fine structures of DNA, viruses, coal and graphite. Franklin is best known for her work on the X-ray diffraction images of DNA which formed a basis of Watson and Crick's hypothesis of the double helical structure of DNA in their 1953 publication, Later she led pioneering work on the tobacco mosaic and polio viruses. She died in 1958 of bronchopneumonia, secondary carcinomatosis, and cancer of the ovary.


Education and Career
In the summer of 1938 Franklin went to Newnham College, Cambridge. She passed her finals in 1941, but was only awarded a decree titular, as women were not entitled to degrees (BA Cantab.) from Cambridge at the time.

University education
She worked for Ronald Norish between 1941 and 1942. Because of her desire to do war work during World War II, she worked at the British Coal Utilisation Research Association in Kingston-upon-Thames from August 1942, studying the porosity of coal. Her work helped spark the idea of high-strength carbon fibres and was the basis of her doctoral degree-"The physical chemistry of solid organic colloids with special reference to coal and related materials" that she earned in 1945.

British Coal Utilisation Research Association
After the war ended Franklin accepted an offer to work in Paris with Jacques Mering.

Rosalind Franklin Laboratoire central des services chimiques de l'État
In January 1951, Franklin started working as a research associate at King's College London in the Medical Research Council's (MRC) Biophysics Unit, directed by John Randall.

King's College London
Franklin's work in Birkbeck involved the use of x-ray crystallography to study the structure of the tobacco mosaic virus (TMV) under J. D. Bernal

Birkbeck College, London
In the summer of 1956, while on a work related trip to the United States of America (USA) Franklin first began to suspect a health problem.
She died in 1958 of bronchopneumonia, secondary carcinomatosis, and carcinoma of the ovary; her death certificate read (quote) "A Research Scientist, Spinster, Daughter of Ellis Arthur Franklin, a Banker."

Illness and death
Various controversies have surrounded Rosalind Franklin; these have all come to light after her death.

Allegations of sexism at King's College
Rosalind Franklin's contributions to the Crick and Watson model include an X-ray photograph of B-DNA (called photograph 51),

Contribution to the model of DNA
On the completion of their model, Francis Crick and James Watson had invited Maurice Wilkins to be a co-author of their paper describing the structure.

Rosalind Franklin Recognition of her contribution to the model of DNA
The rules of the Nobel Prize forbid posthumous nominations.

Nobel Prize
a) on the base:
i) "These strands unravel during cell reproduction. Genes are encoded in the sequence of bases."
ii) "The double helix model was supported by the work of Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins."
b) on the helices:
i) "The structure of DNA was discovered in 1953 by Francis Crick and James Watson while Watson lived here at Clare."
ii) "The molecule of DNA has two helical strands that are linked by base pairs Adenine - Thymine or Guanine - Cytosine."

1982, Iota Sigma Pi designated Franklin a National Honorary Member.
The U.S. National Cancer Institute awards the Rosalind E. Franklin Award for Women in Science.
The wording on the new DNA sculpture outside Clare College's Thirkill Court, Cambridge, England is Posthumous recognition

Further reading

X-ray crystallography
The Double Helix



In the first prologue, three people, the theatre director, the poet, and an actor (also referred to as the fool), discuss the purpose of the theatre. The director approaches the theatre from a financial perspective, and is looking to make an income by pleasing the crowd; the actor seeks his own glory through fame as an actor; and the poet aspires to create a work of art with meaningful content. Many productions use the same actors later in the play to draw connections between characters: the director reappears as Wagner, the poet as Faust, and the buffoon as Mephistopheles.

The Prologue in the Theatre
The play begins with the prologue in Heaven. In an allusion to the story of Job, Mephistopheles wagers with God for the soul of Faust.
God has decided to "soon lead Faust to clarity", who previously only "served [Him] confusedly". However, to test Faust, he allows Mephistopheles to attempt to lead him astray. God declares that "man still must err, while he doth strive". It is shown that the outcome of the bet is certain, for "a good man, in his darkest impulses, remains aware of the right path", and Mephistopheles is permitted to lead Faust astray only so that he may learn from his misdeeds. That in itself is his main objective...

The Prologue in Heaven: The Wager

Faust's Tragedy
The play proper opens with a monologue by Faust, sitting in his study, contemplating all that he has studied throughout his life. Despite his wide studies, he is dissatisfied with his understanding of the workings of the world, and has determined only that he knows "nothing" after all. Science having failed him, Faust seeks knowledge in Nostradamus, in the "sign of the Macrocosmos", and from an Earth-spirit, still without achieving satisfaction.
As Faust reflects on the lessons of the Earth-spirit, he is interrupted by his famulus, Wagner. Wagner symbolizes the vain scientific type who understands only book-learning, and represents the educated bourgeoisie. His approach to learning is a bright, cold quest, in contrast to Faust, who is led by emotional longing to seek divine knowledge.
Dejected, Faust spies a phial of poison and contemplates suicide. However he is halted by the sound of church bells announcing Easter, which remind him not of Christian duty but of his happier childhood days.

Faust and Wagner take a walk into the town, where people are celebrating Easter. They hail Faust as he passes them because Faust's father, an alchemist himself, cured the plague. Faust is in a black mood. As they walk among the promenading villagers, Faust reveals to Wagner his inner conflict. Faust and Wagner see a poodle, who they do not know is Mephistopheles in disguise, which follows them into the town.

Outside the town gate
Faust returns to his rooms, and the dog follows him. Faust translates the Gospel of John, which presents difficulties, as Faust cannot determine the sense of the first sentence (specifically, the word logosIn the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God., currently translated as The Word). Eventually he settles upon "In the beginning was the deed" as the translation.
The words of the Bible agitate the dog, which shows itself as a monster. When Faust attempts to repel it with sorcery, the dog transforms into Mephistopheles, in the disguise of a travelling scholar. After being confronted by Faust as to his identity Mephistopheles proposes to show Faust the pleasures of life. At first Faust refuses, but the devil draws him into a wager, saying that he will show Faust things he has never seen. They sign a pact agreeing that only if Mephistopheles can give Faust a moment in which he no longer wishes to strive, but begs for that moment to go on, can he win Faust's soul:
"If the swift moment I entreat:
Tarry a while! You are so fair!
Then forge the shackles to my feet,
Then I will gladly perish there!
Then let them toll the passing-bell,
Then of your servitude be free,
The clock may stop, its hands fall still,
And time be over then for me!"
"Faust," Norton Critical Edition, lines 1699–1706

In this, and the following scenes, Mephistopheles leads Faust through the "small" and "great" worlds. These scenes confirm what was clear to Faust in his overestimation of his strength: he cannot lose the bet, because he will never be satisfied, and thus will never experience the "great moment" Mephistopheles has promised him. Mephistopheles appears unable to keep the pact, since he prefers not to fulfill Faust's wishes, but rather to separate him from his former existence. He never provides Faust what he wants, instead he attempts to infatuate Faust with superficial indulgences, and thus enmesh him in deep guilt.
In the scene in Auerbach's Cellar, Mephistopheles takes Faust to a tavern, where Faust is bored and disgusted by the drunken revellers. Mephistopheles realizes his first attempt to lead Faust to ruin is aborted, for Faust expects something different.

Auerbach's Cellar in Leipzig

Gretchen's Tragedy
Mephistopheles takes Faust to see a witch, who—with the aid of a magic potion—turns Faust into a handsome young man. Faust sees an image of Helen of Troy in a magic mirror and falls in love. Helen appears spontaneously, without intervention of Mephistopheles, or other magic. She reappears in Faust, Part II. In contrast to the scene in Auerbach's Cellar, where men behaved as animals, here animals (lemurs) behave as men.

Witch's Kitchen
Faust spies Gretchen on the street in her town, and demands Mephistopheles procure her for him. Mephistopheles foresees difficulty, due to Gretchen's uncorrupted nature. He leaves jewelry in her cabinet, arousing her curiosity. Gretchen brings the jewelry to her mother, who is wary of its origin, and donates it to the Church, much to Mephistopheles's infuriation.

On the street
Mephistopheles leaves another chest of jewelry in Gretchen's house. Gretchen innocently shows the jewelry to her neighbour Martha. Martha advises her to secretly wear the jewelry there, in her house.
Mephistopheles brings Martha the news that her long absent husband has died. He arranges with Martha to bring another witness to meet her in the garden, requesting her also to bring Gretchen to the meeting.
In the previous scene, Faust was not prepared to lie to meet Gretchen. Now he is so controlled by his desire for Gretchen that he consents to lie in order to see her.

The neighbour's house
At the garden meeting, Martha ironically flirts with Mephistopheles, and he is at pains to reject her unconcealed advances. Gretchen confesses her love to Faust, but she knows instinctively that his companion (Mephistopheles) has improper motives.
Gretchen presents Faust with the famous question "Now tell me, how do you take religion?" She wants to admit Faust to her room, but fears her mother. Faust gives Gretchen's mother a bottle containing a sleeping potion. Catastrophically, the potion is poisonous, and the tragedy takes its course.

In the following scenes Gretchen has the first premonitions that she is pregnant. Gretchen and Martha's discussion of an unmarried mother, in the scene at the Well, confirms the reader's suspicion of Gretchen's pregnancy. Gretchen is distressed to discover the poor place in society of such women.
Valentine, Gretchen's brother, is enraged by her liaison with Faust and challenges him to a duel. Guided by Mephistopheles Faust defeats Valentine, who curses Gretchen just before he dies.

At the well
Gretchen seeks comfort in the church, but she is tormented by an Evil Spirit who whispers in her ear, reminding her of her guilt.
This scene is generally considered to be the finest in the play, the Evil Spirit's tormenting accusations and Gretchen's attempts to resist them are interwoven with verses of the Latin hymn Dies Irae (Day of Wrath), which is being sung in the background.

Faust Part 1 Walpurgisnacht
Mephistopheles procures the key to the dungeon, and puts the guards to sleep, so that Faust may enter. Gretchen is no longer subject to the illusion of youth upon Faust, and initially does not recognize him. Faust attempts to persuade her to escape, but she refuses because she recognizes that Faust no longer loves her, but pities her. When she sees Mephistopheles, she is frightened and implores to heaven: "Judgment of God! To thee my soul I give!". Mephistopheles pushes Faust from the prison with the words: "She now is judged" (Sie ist gerichtet). Gretchen's salvation, however, is proven by voices from above: "is saved" (ist gerettet).


The Julian calendar was introduced in 46 BC by Julius Caesar and came into force in 45 BC (709 ab urbe condita). It was chosen after consultation with the astronomer Sosigenes of Alexandria and was probably designed to approximate the tropical year, known at least since Hipparchus. It has a regular year of 365 days divided into 12 months, and a leap day is added to February every four years. Hence the Julian year is on average 365.25 days long.
Although the Julian calendar remained in use into the 20th century in some countries and is still used by many national Orthodox churches, it has generally been replaced for civil use by the modern Gregorian calendar. Orthodox Churches no longer using the Julian calendar typically use the Revised Julian calendar rather than the Gregorian calendar.
The notation "Old Style" (OS) is sometimes used to indicate a date in the Julian calendar, as opposed to "New Style" (NS), which either represents the Julian date with the start of the year as 1 January or a full mapping onto the Gregorian calendar.

Julian calendar Julian reform
The ordinary year in the previous Roman calendar consisted of 12 months, for a total of 355 days. In addition, a 27-day intercalary month, the Mensis Intercalaris, was sometimes inserted between February and March. This intercalary month was formed by inserting 22 days after the first 23 or 24 days of February, the last five days of February becoming the last five days of Intercalaris. The net effect was to add 22 or 23 days to the year, forming an intercalary year of 377 or 378 days.
According to the later writers Censorinus and Macrobius, the ideal intercalary cycle consisted of ordinary years of 355 days alternating with intercalary years, alternately 377 and 378 days long. On this system, the average Roman year would have had 366¼ days over four years, giving it an average drift of one day per year relative to any solstice or equinox. Macrobius describes a further refinement wherein, for 8 years out of 24, there were only three intercalary years, each of 377 days. This refinement averages the length of the year to 365¼ days over 24 years. In practice, intercalations did not occur schematically according to these ideal systems, but were determined by the pontifices. So far as can be determined from the historical evidence, they were much less regular than these ideal schemes suggest. They usually occurred every second or third year, but were sometimes omitted for much longer, and occasionally occurred in two consecutive years.
If managed correctly this system allowed the Roman year, on average, to stay roughly aligned to a tropical year. However, if too many intercalations were omitted, as happened after the Second Punic War and during the Civil Wars, the calendar would drift rapidly out of alignment with the tropical year. Moreover, since intercalations were often determined quite late, the average Roman citizen often did not know the date, particularly if he were some distance from the city. For these reasons, the last years of the pre-Julian calendar were later known as years of confusion. The problems became particularly acute during the years of Julius Caesar's pontificate before the reform, 63 BC to 46 BC, when there were only five intercalary months, whereas there should have been eight, and none at all during the five Roman years before 46 BC.
The reform was intended to correct this problem permanently. Before it took effect, the missed intercalations during Julius Caesar's pontificate were made up by inserting 67 days (22+23+22) between the last pre-Julian November and December in 46 BC, in the form of two months, in addition to 23 days that had already been added to February. Thus 90 days were added to this last year of the Roman Republican calendar, giving it 445 days. Because it was the last of a series of irregular years, this extra-long year was, and is, referred to as the last year of confusion. The first year of operation of the new calendar was 45 BC.

Leap year error
Immediately after the Julian reform, the twelve months of the Roman calendar were named Ianuarius, Februarius, Martius, Aprilis, Maius, Iunius, Quintilis, Sextilis, September, October, November, and December, just as they were before the reform. The old intercalary month, the Mensis Intercalaris, was abolished and replaced with a single intercalary day at the same point (i.e. five days before the end of Februarius). The first month of the year continued to be Ianuarius, as it had been since 153 BC.
The Romans later renamed months after Julius Caesar and Augustus, renaming Quintilis (originally, "the Fifth month", with March = month 1) as Iulius (July) in 44 BC and Sextilis ("Sixth month") as Augustus (August) in 8 BC. Quintilis was renamed to honour Caesar because it was the month of his birth. According to a senatus consultum quoted by Macrobius, Sextilis was renamed to honour Augustus because several of the most significant events in his rise to power, culminating in the fall of Alexandria, fell in that month.
Other months were renamed by other emperors, but apparently none of the later changes survived their deaths. Caligula renamed September ("Seventh month") as Germanicus; Nero renamed Aprilis (April) as Neroneus, Maius (May) as Claudius and Iunius (June) as Germanicus; and Domitian renamed September as Germanicus and October ("Eighth month") as Domitianus. At other times, September was also renamed as Antoninus and Tacitus, and November ("Ninth month") was renamed as Faustina and Romanus. Commodus was unique in renaming all twelve months after his own adopted names (January to December): Amazonius, Invictus, Felix, Pius, Lucius, Aelius, Aurelius, Commodus, Augustus, Herculeus, Romanus, and Exsuperatorius.
Much more lasting than the ephemeral month names of the post-Augustan Roman emperors were the names introduced by Charlemagne. He renamed all of the months agriculturally into Old High German. They were used until the 15th century, and with some modifications until the late 18th century in Germany and in the Netherlands (January-December): Wintarmanoth (winter month), Hornung (the month when the male red deer sheds its antlers), Lentzinmanoth (Lent month), Ostarmanoth (Easter month), Wonnemanoth (love making month), Brachmanoth (plowing month), Heuvimanoth (hay month), Aranmanoth (harvest month), Witumanoth (wood month), Windumemanoth (vintage month), Herbistmanoth (autumn/harvest month), and Heilagmanoth (holy month).

Month names
The Julian reform set the lengths of the months to their modern values. However, a 13th century scholar, Sacrobosco, proposed a different explanation for the lengths of Julian months which is still widely repeated but is certainly wrong. According to Sacrobosco, the original scheme for the months in the Julian Calendar was very regular, alternately long and short. From January through December, the month lengths according to Sacrobosco for the Roman Republican calendar were:
He then thought that Julius Caesar added one day to every month except February, a total of 11 more days, giving the year 365 days. A leap day could now be added to the extra short February:
He then said Augustus changed this to:
so that the length of Augustus would not be shorter than (and therefore inferior to) the length of Iulius, giving us the irregular month lengths which are still in use.
There is abundant evidence disproving this theory. First, a wall painting of a Roman calendar predating the Julian reform has survived, which confirms the literary accounts that the months were already irregular before Julius Caesar reformed them:
Also, the Julian reform did not change the dates of the Nones and Ides. In particular, the Ides were late (on the 15th rather than 13th) in March, May, July and October, showing that these months always had 31 days in the Roman calendar, whereas Sacrobosco's theory requires that March, May and July were originally 30 days long and that the length of October was changed from 29 to 30 days by Caesar and to 31 days by Augustus. Further, Sacrobosco's theory is explicitly contradicted by the third and fifth century authors Censorinus and Macrobius, and it is inconsistent with seasonal lengths given by Varro, writing in 37 BC, before the Augustan reform, with the 31-day Sextilis given by the new Egyptian papyrus from 24 BC, and with the 28-day February shown in the Fasti Caeretani, which is dated before 12 BC.

Month lengths
The dominant method that the Romans used to identify a year for dating purposes was to name it after the two consuls who took office in it. Since 153 BC, they had taken office on 1 January, and Julius Caesar did not change the beginning of the year. Thus this consular year was an eponymous or named year. In addition to consular years, the Romans sometimes used the regnal year of the emperor, and by the late fourth century documents were also being dated according to the 15-year cycle of the indiction. In 537, Justinian required that henceforth the date must include the name of the emperor and his regnal year, in addition to the indiction and the consul, while also allowing the use of local eras. After 541, however, only the reigning emperor held the consulate, typically for only one year in his reign. As a result, the consular date was often a count of years since the last consul (so-called "post-consular" dating). Similar post-consular dates are also known in the West in the early sixth century. The last known post-consular date is year 22 after the consulate of Heraclius.
While the Julian reform applied originally to the Roman calendar, many of the other calendars then used in the Roman Empire were aligned with the reformed calendar under Augustus. This led to the adoption of several local eras for the Julian calendar, such as the Era of Actium and the Spanish Era, some of which were used for a considerable time. Perhaps the best known is the Era of Martyrs, sometimes also called Anno Diocletiani (after Diocletian), which was often used by the Alexandrian Christians to number their Easters during the fourth and fifth centuries and continued to be used by the Coptic and Abyssinian churches.
In the Eastern Mediterranean, the efforts of Christian chronographers such as Annianus of Alexandria to date the Biblical creation of the world led to the introduction of Anno Mundi eras based on this event. The most important of these was the Aetos Kosmou, used throughout the Byzantine world from the 10th century and in Russia till 1700. In the West, Dionysius Exiguus proposed the system of Anno Domini in 525. This era gradually spread through the western Christian world, once the system was adopted by Bede.

Year numbering
The Roman calendar began the year on 1 January, and this remained the start of the year after the Julian reform. However, even after local calendars were aligned to the Julian calendar, they started the new year on different dates. The Alexandrian calendar in Egypt started on 29 August (30 August after an Alexandrian leap year). Several local provincial calendars were aligned to start on the birthday of Augustus, 23 September. The indiction caused the Byzantine year, which used the Julian calendar, to begin on 1 September; this date is still used in the Eastern Orthodox Church for the beginning of the liturgical year. When the Julian calendar was adopted in Russia in AD 988 by Vladimir I of Kiev, the year was numbered Anno Mundi 6496, beginning on 1 March, six months after the start of the Byzantine Anno Mundi year with the same number. In 1492 (AM 7000), Ivan III, according to church tradition, realigned the start of the year to 1 September, so that AM 7000 only lasted for six months in Russia, from 1 March to 31 August 1492.
Most Western European countries shifted the first day of their numbered year to 1 January while they were still using the Julian calendar, before they adopted the Gregorian calendar, many during the sixteenth century. The following table shows the years in which various countries adopted 1 January as the start of the year. Eastern European countries, with populations showing allegiance to the Orthodox Church, began the year on 1 September from about 988.
Note that as a consequence of change of New Year, 1 January 1751 to 24 March 1751 were non-existent dates in England.

New Year's Day
The Julian calendar was in general use in Europe and Northern Africa from the times of the Roman Empire until 1582, when Pope Gregory XIII promulgated the Gregorian Calendar. Reform was required because too many leap days are added with respect to the astronomical seasons on the Julian scheme. On average, the astronomical solstices and the equinoxes advance by about 11 minutes per year against the Julian year, causing the calendar to gain a day about every 134 years. While Hipparchus and presumably Sosigenes were aware of the discrepancy, although not of its correct value, it was evidently felt to be of little importance at the time of the Julian reform. However, it accumulated significantly over time.
The Gregorian Calendar was soon adopted by most Catholic countries (e.g. Spain, Portugal, Poland, most of Italy). Protestant countries followed later, and the countries of Eastern Europe even later. In the British Empire (including the American colonies), Wednesday 2 September 1752 was followed by Thursday 14 September 1752. For 12 years from 1700 Sweden used a modified Julian Calendar, and adopted the new-style calendar in 1753, but Russia remained on the Julian calendar until 1917, after the Russian Revolution (which is thus called the 'October Revolution' though it occurred in Gregorian November), while Greece continued to use it until 1923.
Although all Eastern Orthodox countries (most of them in Eastern or Southeastern Europe) had adopted the Gregorian calendar by 1927, their national churches had not. A revised Julian calendar was proposed during a synod in Constantinople in May 1923, consisting of a solar part which was and will be identical to the Gregorian calendar until the year 2800, and a lunar part which calculated Easter astronomically at Jerusalem. All Orthodox churches refused to accept the lunar part, so almost all Orthodox churches continue to celebrate Easter according to the Julian calendar (the Finnish Orthodox Church uses the Gregorian Easter).
The solar part of the revised Julian calendar was accepted by only some Orthodox churches. Those that did accept it, with hope for improved dialogue and negotiations with the Western denominations, were the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, the Orthodox Churches of Greece, Cyprus, Romania, Poland, Bulgaria (the last in 1963), and the Orthodox Church in America (although some OCA parishes are permitted to use the Julian calendar). Thus these churches celebrate the Nativity on the same day that Western Christians do, 25 December Gregorian until 2800. The Orthodox Churches of Jerusalem, Russia, Macedonia, Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine, and the Greek Old Calendarists continue to use the Julian calendar for their fixed dates, thus they celebrate the Nativity on 25 December Julian (which is 7 January Gregorian until 2100).
In Northern Africa, the Julian calendar (the Berber calendar) is still in use for agricultural purposes, and is called فلاحي fellāhī "peasant" or sاﻋﺠﻤﻲ ajamī "not Arabic". Since it did not follow the Gregorian reform, its beginning slowly shifted and now the first of yennayer corresponds to January 14.

See also



IBM Fellow (IBM) (1970)
Harry H. Goode Memorial Award (IEEE Computer Society) (1975)
Turing Award (Association for Computing Machinery) (1979)
Computer Pioneer Award [Charter recipient] (IEEE Computer Society) (1982) Kenneth E. IversonKenneth E. Iverson See also

A Formal Description of SYSTEM/360 by Adin D. Falkoff, Kenneth E. Iverson, and Edward H. Sussenguth, Jr., IBM Systems Journal, Volume 3, Number 3, 1964.
The Design of APL by Adin D. Falkoff and Kenneth E. Iverson, IBM Journal of Research and Development, Volume 17, Number 4, 1973.
Notation as a Tool of Thought (1979 Turing Award Lecture) by Kenneth E. Iverson, Communications of the ACM, Volume 23, Number 8, August 1980.
A Personal View of APL by Kenneth E. Iverson, IBM Systems Journal, Volume 30, Number 4, 1991.


Green movement Green party List of Green topics
Green anarchism EcofeminismGreen Party (Czech Republic) Eco-socialism Green syndicalism Green liberalism Green conservatism
Global Greens · Africa · Americas · Asia-Pacific · Europe
Four Pillars Global Greens Charter: ecological wisdom social justice participatory democracy nonviolence sustainability respect diversityGreen Party (Czech Republic) Politics Portal ·  v  d  e 
The Green Party (Strana zelených in Czech) is a political party in the Czech Republic.
The party was founded in February 1990 but for a long time it struggled to obtain significant influence in Czech politics. In the 2002 legislative elections the party received 2.4% of the vote. Internal conflicts and constant bickering were covered by the media much more than party's political aims but changes in the policy in the party were made after the general party congress in September 2005. The new chairman, former environment minister Martin Bursík, focuses much more on the political aims and their propagation in media. Part of the intra-party opposition left the party and they tried to found a new political party.
The party holds a single seat (Jaromír Štětina) in the Senate (upper house of the Parliament of the Czech Republic). In the 2006 legislative elections the party received 6.3% of the vote and thus won six seats in the lower house - the Chamber of Deputies:
One week before the elections, several left-oriented members were purged, for open public call not to vote the greens but the social democrats instead. This included Eva Holubová, number two in Moravian-Silesian Region.
The Green Party is part of the governing coalition, together with the Civic Democrats (ODS) and the Christian Democrats (KDU–ČSL) since January 2007. For more details see Mirek Topolánek's Second Cabinet.

Central Bohemian Region: Olga Zubová
Moravian-Silesian Region: Věra Jakubková
Prague: Martin Bursík and Kateřina Jacques
South Moravian Region: Ondřej Liška
Ústí nad Labem Region: Přemysl Rabas


Per Westerberg
Per Erik Gunnar Westerberg (born 2 August 1951) is a Swedish Moderate Party politician and as of 2006 the current Speaker of the Riksdag.
Westerberg was born in Nyköping and graduated from Stockholm School of Economics in 1974. His family has been running a family business for generations and he is now the richest member of the Riksdag, with a personal wealth exceeding 200 million SEK, (around $30 million 2006). His brother, Lars Westerberg, is CEO of Autoliv.
Per Westerberg has been active within Moderate politics since the election campaign in 1966, when he joined the Moderate Youth League. In 1979, he was elected to the Riksdag for his home county of Södermanland. He is the current longest serving member of the Riksdag, even though that is not what requires him to be the Speaker. During the Moderate-led government 1991-1994, Westerberg served as Minister for Industry and Trade. In 2003 he was elected one of the three Vice Speakers of the Riksdag. On October 2, 2006 he was elected Speaker of the Riksdag.
Per Westerberg and his family continue to make their home in Nyköping and he continues to serve on the Board of the Moderate Party and as chairman of the Moderate Party in Södermanland.


Communication is a process that allows organisms to exchange information by several methods. Communication requires that all parties understand a common language that is exchanged. There are auditory means, such as speaking or singing, and nonverbal, physical means, such as body language, sign language, paralanguage, touch, eye contact, or the use of writing.
Communication happens at many levels (even for one single action), in many different ways, and for most beings, as well as certain machines. Several, if not all, fields of study dedicate a portion of attention to communication, so when speaking about communication it is very important to be sure about what aspects of communication one is speaking about. Definitions of communication range widely, some recognizing that animals can communicate with each other as well as human beings, and some are more narrow, only including human beings within the parameters of human symbolic interaction.
Nonetheless, communication is usually described along a few major dimensions:
Between parties, communication includes acts that confer knowledge and experiences, give advice and commands, and ask questions. These acts may take many forms, in one of the various manners of communication. The form depends on the abilities of the group communicating. Together, communication content and form make messages that are sent towards a destination. The target can be oneself, another person or being , another entity (such as a corporation or group of beings).
Depending on the focus (who, what, in which form, to whom, to which effect), there exist various classifications. Some of those systematical questions are elaborated in Communication theory.

Content (what type of things are communicated)
Source (by whom)
Form (in which form)
Channel (through which medium)
Destination/Receiver (to whom)
Purpose/Pragmatic aspect (with what kind of results) Communication as information transmission
Put generally, communication is the exchange of information between members of a group of living beings that enables survival or improved living conditions for the sender or receiver of the message or both. As expressed in the theory of symbolic communication, the exchange of messages change the a priori expectation of events.
Since the beginning of time, the need to communicate emerges from a set of universal questions: Who am I? Who needs to know? Why do they need to know? How will they find out? How do I want them to respond? Individuals, communities, and organizations express their individuality through their identity. On the continuum from the cave paintings at Lascaux to digital messages transmitted via satellite, humanity continues to create an infinite sensory palette of visual and verbal expression.
As a process, communication has synonyms such as expressing feelings, conversing, speaking, corresponding, writing, listening and exchanging. Communication is often formed around the principles of respect, promises and the want for social improvement. People communicate to satisfy needs in both their work and non-work lives. People want to be heard, to be appreciated and to be wanted. They also want to accomplish tasks and to achieve goals. Obviously, then, a major purpose of communication is to help people feel good about themselves and about their friends, groups, and organizations. For these types of communication, there must be a transmission of thoughts, ideas and feelings from one mind to another.


Communications Forms
Nonverbal communication is the act of imparting or interchanging thoughts, opinions or information without the use of words, using gestures, sign language, facial expressions and body language instead. Much of the "emotional meaning" we take from other people is found in the person's facial expressions and tone of voice, comparatively little is taken from what the person actually says (More Than Talk).

A language is a syntactically organized system of signals, such as voice sounds, intonations or pitch, gestures or , written symbols which communicate thoughts or feelings. If a language is about communicating with signals, voice, sounds, gestures, or written symbols, can animal communications be considered as a language? Animals do not have a written form of a language, but use a language to communicate with each another. In that sense, an animal communication can be considered as a separated language.
Human spoken and written languages can be described as a system of symbols (sometimes known as lexemes) and the grammars (rules) by which the symbols are manipulated. The word "language" is also used to refer to common properties of languages.
Language learning is normal in human childhood. Most human languages use patterns of sound or gesture for symbols which enable communication with others around them. There are thousands of human languages, and these seem to share certain properties, even though many shared properties have exceptions. Tell the world, learn a language.
There is no defined line between a language and a dialect, but Max Weinreich is credited as saying that a language is a dialect with an army and a navy.
Constructed languages such as Esperanto, programming languages, and various mathematical formalisms are not necessarily restricted to the properties shared by human languages.

The beginning of human communication through artificial channels, i.e. not vocalization or gestures, goes back to ancient cave paintings, drawn maps, and writing.
Our indebtedness to the Ancient Romans in the field of communication does not end with the Latin root "communicare". They devised what might be described as the first real mail or postal system in order to centralize control of the empire from Rome. This allowed for personal letters and for Rome to gather knowledge about events in its many widespread provinces.
The adoption of a dominant communication medium is important enough that historians have folded civilization into "ages" according to the medium most widely used. A book titled "Five Epochs of Civilization" by William McGaughey (Thistlerose, 2000) divides history into the following stages: Ideographic writing produced the first civilization; alphabetic writing, the second; printing, the third; electronic recording and broadcasting, the fourth; and computer communication, the fifth. The media effects what people think about themselves and how they perceive people as well. What we think about self image and what others should look like comes from the media.
While it could be argued that these "Epochs" are just a historian's construction, digital and computer communication shows concrete evidence of changing the way humans organize. The latest trend in communication, termed smartmobbing, involves ad-hoc organization through mobile devices, allowing for effective many-to-many communication and social networking.

Channels / Media
In the last century, a revolution in telecommunications has greatly altered communication by providing new media for long distance communication. The first transatlantic two-way radio broadcast occurred in 1906 and led to common communication via analogue and digital media:
Communications media impact more than the reach of messages. They impact content and customs; for example, Thomas Edison had to discover that hello was the least ambiguous greeting by voice over a distance; previous greetings such as hail tended to be garbled in the transmission. Similarly, the terseness of e-mail and chat rooms produced the need for the emoticon.
Modern communication media now allow for intense long-distance exchanges between larger numbers of people (many-to-many communication via e-mail, Internet forums). On the other hand, many traditional broadcast media and mass media favor one-to-many communication (television, cinema, radio, newspaper, magazines).

Analog telecommunications include traditional telephony, radio, and TV broadcasts.
Digital telecommunications allow for computer-mediated communication, telegraphy, and computer networks. Electronic media
Mass media is a term used to denote, as a class, that section of the media specifically conceived and designed to reach a very large audience (typically at least as large as the whole population of a nation state). It was coined in the 1920s with the advent of nationwide radio networks and of mass-circulation newspapers and magazines. The mass-media audience has been viewed by some commentators as forming a mass society with special characteristics, notably atomization or lack of social connections, which render it especially susceptible to the influence of modern mass-media techniques such as advertising and propaganda.

Mass media
Communication in many of its facets is not limited to humans or even primates. Every information exchange between living organisms, a transmission of signals involving a living sender and receiver, can count as communication. Most of this, necessarily, is nonverbal. Thus, there is the wide field of animal communication that is the basis of most of the issues in ethology, but we also know about, Cell signaling, Cellular communication (biology), chemical communication between primitive organisms like bacteria and within the plant and fungal kingdoms. One distinctive non-intrinsic feature of these types of communication in contrast to human communication is allegedly the absence of emotional features, and a limitation to the pure informational level.

Animal communication is any behaviour on the part of one animal that has an effect on the current or future behaviour of another animal. Of course, human communication can be subsumed as a highly developed form of animal communication. The study of animal communication, called zoosemiotics (distinguishable from anthroposemiotics, the study of human communication) has played an important part in the development of ethology, sociobiology, and the study of animal cognition.This is quite evident as humans are able to communicate with animals especially dolphins and other animals used in circuses however these animals have to learn a special means of communication.
Animal communication, and indeed the understanding of the animal world in general, is a rapidly growing field, and even in the 21st century so far, many prior understandings related to diverse fields such as personal symbolic name use, animal emotions, animal culture and learning, and even sexual conduct, long thought to be well understood, have been revolutionized.

Animal communication
Plant communication is observed (a) within the plant organism, i.e. within plant cells and between plant cells, (b) between plants of the same or related species and (c) between plants and non-plant organisms, especially in the rootzone. Plant roots communicate in parallel with rhizobia bacteria, with fungi and with insects in the soil. This parallel sign-mediated interactions which are governed by syntactic, pragmatic and semantic rules are possible because of the decentralized "nervous system" of plants. As recent research shows 99% of intraorganismic plant communication processes are neuronal-like. Plants also communicate via volatiles in the case of herbivory attack behavior to warn neighboring plants. In parallel they produce other volatiles which attract parasites which attack these herbivores. In stress situations plants can overwrite the genetic code they inherited from their parents and revert to that of their grand- or great-grandparents.

Plant communication
For effective communication in specialized contexts, certain strategies can be taken that will help people achieve their goals and can be seen as techniques for attaining the purpose of communication.

SOLER (Egan, 1986) is a technique used by care workers. It helps the clients or patients to trust the care-giver and to feel safe and helps in effective communication. SOLER is:
S – Sit squarely in relation to the patient
O – Open position
L – Lean slightly towards the patient
E – Eye contact
R – Relax


Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin 117, 497-529.
Severin, Werner J., Tankard, James W., Jr., (1979). Communication Theories: Origins, Methods, Uses. New York: Hastings House, ISBN 0801317037
Witzany, G. (2007). The Logos of the Bios 2. Bio-Communication. Umweb, Helsinki.


Kunstnernes Hus
Kunstnernes Hus (Norwegian for "Artists' House") is an art gallery in Oslo, Norway. It is Norway's largest gallery under the direction of artists, and has served as a major center for exhibits of Norwegian and international contemporary art. It is also a prominent example of Functionalist architecture and houses the Office for Contemporary Art Norway. The building is situated in Wergelandsveien 17, across the Royal palace park
After having raised funds and interest for several years, Bildende Kunstneres Styre (now Norwegian Visual Artists Association) acquired the site for its headquarters in 1927 and opened an architectural contest in 1928. Several important specifications were imposed on entries, among them natural light from the ceiling, limited building height, and a facade that blended with the surrounding architecture. Its architecture is noted as an important milestone in the transition from the legacy of 19th century Neoclassical architecture to 20th century Functionalism.
Over 60 proposals were submitted, and the winning proposal, named Felix, by Gudolf Blakstad and Herman Munthe-Kaas was simplified before construction began in 1929. The building opened on October 1, 1930 as an independent foundation with public support. In 1931 it won the Houen Prize for excellent architecture.
It was renovated in 2000/2001 at a cost of about NOK 20 million to improve the galleries, the general structural and aesthetic integrity, and bring safety infrastructure to modern standards.
Kunstnernes Hus is governed by a five-member board, of whom four are elected by the Norwegian Visual Artists Association, and one from the Ministry of Culture.
In addition to numerous shows throughout the year, it is one of two sites for the annual art show Høstutstillingen and also the annual fellowship application exhibit. Several pieces are on permanent display, including the bronze lion sculptures at the entrance by Ørnulf Bast, a relief by Niels Larsen Stevns, and pieces by Per Krogh and Lars Backer. There are galleries on two floors. There is also an eating establishment on the ground floor.


A brigade is a military unit that is typically composed of two to five regiments or battalions, depending on the era and nationality of a given army. Usually, a brigade is a sub-component of a division, a larger unit consisting of two or more brigades; however, some brigades are classified as a separate brigade and operate independently from the traditional division structure.
Traditionally, a brigade's commanding officer was a brigadier general. In most modern armies, a brigade is now commanded by a colonel.

In the British Army, the brigade has been the smallest tactical formation for more than two centuries, since regiments are either administrative groupings of battalions (in the infantry) or battalion-sized units (in the cavalry). A typical brigade may consist of approximately 5,500 personnel between two mechanized infantry battalions, an armored battalion, an armored artillery battalion, and other logistic and engineering units.
The Canadian Forces currently has 3 Regular Force Brigade Groups, known as Canadian Mechanized Brigade Groups: 1 CMBG, 2 CMBG, and 5e GBMC, the primarily French Canadian Brigade Group. These CMBGs are each composed of two mechanized infantry battalions, one light infantry battalion, one armoured regiment, one mechanized artillery regiment, one engineer regiment, one combat service and support (CSS) battalion, and one Military Police Platoon. Regular Force CMBG strengths are 4,000 personnel. Canada also has 10 Primary Reserve Brigades (Canadian Brigade Group), 31 CBG through 39 CBG, and 41 CBG. The CBG formations are for administrative purposes and, as such, are not deployable.
In the United States Army, a brigade is smaller than a division and roughly equal to or a little larger than a regiment. Strength typically ranges from 1,500 to 3,500 personnel. Army brigades formerly contained two or more and typically five regiments, during the American Civil War, but this structure is now considered obsolete.
In the United States Marine Corps, brigades are only formed for certain missions. Unlike the United States Army, the Marines have intact regimental structures. A Marine brigade is formed only for special expeditionary duty, for which it is outfitted like a smaller Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF). For example, TF TARAWA (2d MEB) during the Operation Iraqi Freedom campaign.
In the armies of colonial powers, such as the British Empire, brigades frequently garrisoned isolated colonial posts, and their commanders had substantial discretion and local authority.
The typical NATO standard brigade consists of approximately 4,000 to 5,000 troops.


A puppeteer is a person who manipulates an inanimate object — a puppet— in real time to create the illusion of life. Depending on the type of puppetry, the puppeteer may be visible to or hidden from the audience. A puppeteer can operate a puppet indirectly by the use of strings, rods, wires, electronics or directly by his or her own hands. Some puppet styles require puppeteers to work together as a team to create a single puppet character.
There are a wide range of styles of puppetry, and all require puppeteers. There are shadow puppets, rod puppets, marionettes, table-top puppets, body puppets, finger and glove puppets. Whatever the style, the puppeteer's role is to manipulate the physical object in such a manner that the audience believes the object is imbued with life. In some instances the persona of the puppeteer is also an important feature. Similarly, animators can make a puppet move on film by using stop motion, where the puppet is moved tiny fractions in between each frame.

Puppeteer List of notable puppeteers

Sophie Taeuber-Arp (member of the Swiss Dada movement)
Michael Ian Black (American actor)
Peter Brook (British theatrical producer & director)
Alexander Calder (American artist)
Bob Clampett (American animator)
Jean Cocteau (French writer & filmmaker)
Henrik Ibsen (Norwegian playwright)
Alfred Jarry (French writer)
Ted Milton (British poet, performer and musician)
Oskar Schlemmer (German Bauhaus artist)
Pete Seeger (American folk singer) [1]
Jon Stewart (American comedian)
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (German artist, scientist & writer)
Phil Vischer (American animator, director, author, co-founder of VeggieTales)
Mike Nawrocki (American animator, director, co-founder of VeggieTales) Puppeteer Non-Puppetry related

Adult puppeteering
Larry Niven's Known Space science fiction stories in which Puppeteers are an alien race.
For information about puppetry technique or the use of puppets, see the respective articles on each kind of puppet.


Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court, overturning earlier rulings going back to Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, declaring the establishment by state law of separate public schools for black and white students inherently unequal. Handed down on May 17, 1954, the Warren Court's unanimous (9-0) decision stated, in no uncertain terms, that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." As a result, de jure racial segregation was ruled a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, this victory thereby paving the way for integration and the Civil Rights Movement.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Background
In 1951, a class action suit was filed against the Board of Education of the City of Topeka, Kansas in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The plaintiffs were thirteen Topeka parents on behalf of their twenty children.

Brown vs. Board of Education
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.).
All were NAACP-sponsored cases. The Davis case, the only case of the five originating from a student protest, began when sixteen year old Barbara Rose Johns organized and led a 450 student walkout of Moton High School.
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 Delaware case was unique in that 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 which made the schools separate but not equal. 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 trial.

Supreme Court review
The Topeka middle schools had been integrated since 1941. Topeka High School was integrated from its inception in the late 1800s. The Kansas law permitting segregated schools allowed them only "below the high school level."
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 of 1953, integrating two attendance districts. All the Topeka elementary schools were changed to neighborhood attendance centers in January of 1956, although existing students were allowed to continue attending their prior assigned schools at their option.
The Topeka Public Schools administration building is named in honor of McKinley Burnett, NAACP chapter president who organized the case.
Monroe Elementary was designated a U.S. National Historic Site unit of the National Park Service on October 26, 1992.

Local outcomes
The 1954 decision reversed the precedent set by the Court's previous decision in Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education, (1899)*, which had specifically validated the segregation of public schools. Brown did not, however, result in the immediate desegregation of America's public schools, nor did it mandate desegregation of public accommodations, such as restaurants or bathrooms, that were owned by private parties, which would not be accomplished until the passage of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, it was a giant step forward for the civil rights movement, placing the weight of the Federal Judiciary squarely behind the forces of desegregation.
Brown is often referred to as Brown I, because the following year, 1955, the Court completed its ruling. In this second Brown decision, Brown II, the Warren Court ordered the states' compliance with Brown I "with all deliberate speed." Brown II was argued by Robert L. Carter, who had earlier initiated some of the cases consolidated at the Supreme Court into Brown I. Even so, formal compliance with the provisions of these two cases was not expedited, and in the South most public schools would not be desegregated until about 1970 under the Nixon administration. Nearly twenty years after Brown, school desegregation would come to the court's attention again in two cases involving the use of busing to integrate students across school districts: Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1971) and Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974).
Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the unanimous Court in Brown:

Social implications
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." Most Senators and Representatives issued press releases hailing the ruling.

Legal criticism and praise
In 1955, the Supreme Court considered arguments by the schools requesting relief concerning the task of desegregation. In Brown II the court delegated the task of carrying out the 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. Some 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.

Brown II
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 10th Circuit on 2-1 vote found that the vestiges of segregation remained with respect to student and staff assignment. 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.
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 #501 on July 27, 1999. One of the new magnet schools is named after the Scott family attorneys for their role in the Brown case and civil rights.

Brown III
* See Case citation for an explanation of these numbers.

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)* - separate but equal for schools
Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932)* - access to counsel
Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475 (1954)* - the Fourteenth Amendment protects those beyond the racial classes of white or Negro,
Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944)* - non-white voters in primary elections
Sipuel v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Okla. - 332 U.S. 631 (1948)* - access to taxpayer state funded law schools
Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948)* - restrictive covenants
Mendez v. Westminister School District, 64 F. Supp. 544 (1946)* - prohibits segregating Mexican-American children in California
Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950)* - segregated law schools in Texas
McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950)* - prohibits segregation in a public institution of higher learning
Briggs v. Elliott, 347 U.S. 483 (1952)* Brown Case #1 - Summerton, South Carolina.
Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, 103 F. Supp. 337 (1952)* Brown Case #2 - Prince Edward County, Virginia.
Gebhart v. Belton, 33 Del. Ch. 144 (1952)* Brown Case #3 - Claymont, Delaware
Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954)* Brown companion case - dealt with the constitutionality of segregation in the District of Columbia, which--as a federal district, not a state--is not subject to the Fourteenth Amendment.
NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958)* - privacy of NAACP membership lists, and free association of members
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958)* – Federal court enforcement of desegregation
Boynton v. Virginia, 364 U.S. 454 (1960)* - outlawed racial segregation in public transportation
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964)* - banned racial discrimination in public places, particularly in public accommodations even in private property.
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)* - banned anti-miscegenation laws (race-based restrictions on marriage).
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1971)* - established bussing as a solution
Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974)* - rejected bussing across school district lines.
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 127 S. Ct. 2738 (2007)* - rejected using race as the sole determining factor for assigning students to schools
List of United States Supreme Court Cases Related cases

The most common misconception about Brown v. Board of Education is that the case is solely about Linda Brown and whether she should or should not be able to attend the school nearest her home. In fact, Brown was a consolidation of five different cases, from four states, all of which dealt with the same issue. (A similar case from the District of Columbia was handled separately.) Linda Brown was merely the "poster child," as it were, for some 200 plaintiffs altogether. A dozen attorneys and countless community activists were involved in effort to eliminate "de jure" racial segregation in the public schools. Common misconceptions
I thought Plessy had been wrongly decided at the time, that it was not a good interpretation of the equal protection clause to say that when you segregate people by race, there is no denial of equal protection. But Plessy had been on the books for 60 years; Congress had never acted, and the same Congress that had promulgated the 14th Amendment had required segregation in the District schools.... I saw factors on both sides....I did not agree then, and I certainly do not agree now, with the statement that Plessy against Ferguson is right and should be reaffirmed. I had ideas on both sides, and I do not think I ever really finally settled in my own mind on that.... [A]round the lunch table I am sure I defended it....I thought there were good arguments to be made in support of it.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Bibliography

Charles Hamilton Houston
Massive Resistance
Segregation academies
"Southern Manifesto", a document written in 1956 by legislators in the United States Congress opposed to racial integration in public places
Tape v. Hurley
Warriors Don't Cry, a memoir by Melba Pattillo Beals, one of the Little Rock Nine members.
Plessy v. Ferguson
Parents v. Seattle