Primary Source Analysis Worksheet — Paul Robeson’s HUAC Testimony (1956) and Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
Background
Source 1: In 1956, singer, actor, and civil rights activist Paul Robeson appeared before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), which was investigating alleged Communist influence in American life. Robeson, who had long criticized U.S. racism and supported African independence movements, refused to answer questions about his political beliefs and invoked the Fifth Amendment.
Source 2: In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of Education, ruling that racial segregation in public schools violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law, and overturning the “separate but equal” doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896).
Part A: Analyzing the Robeson Testimony
10 points
1. According to the transcript, what reasons does Robeson give for why he believes he was called before the Committee? (2 pts)
2. Robeson repeatedly refuses to give a simple “yes” or “no” answer about Communist Party membership. What strategy is he using, and why might he have chosen it? (2 pts)
3. Robeson says he “felt for the first time like a full human being” while in Russia. What does this statement suggest about his experience of race in the United States? (2 pts)
4. How does Robeson connect his personal family history (his father’s enslavement, his ancestors baking bread for Washington’s troops) to his argument about his right to stay in the United States? (2 pts)
5. Identify one specific line from the testimony that you think best captures Robeson’s attitude toward the Committee. Explain why you chose it. (2 pts)
Part B: Analyzing Brown v. Board of Education
10 points
6. According to the Court, why couldn’t the history of the Fourteenth Amendment settle the question of school segregation? (2 pts)
7. What reasoning does the Court give for concluding that segregated schools cannot be made “equal,” even when buildings, curricula, and teacher salaries are the same? (2 pts)
8. What role does the finding from the Kansas case (quoted in the opinion) play in the Court’s decision? What kind of evidence is it using? (2 pts)
9. What does the Court decide about the “separate but equal” doctrine from Plessy v. Ferguson? (2 pts)
10. Why does the Court say education is “perhaps the most important function of state and local governments”? How does this claim support its ruling? (2 pts)
Part C: Comparing the Two Sources
12 points
11. Both sources address racial inequality in the 1950s, but they come from very different settings (a congressional hearing vs. a Supreme Court opinion) and take very different forms (a confrontational exchange vs. a formal legal ruling). How does the format of each source shape the way its argument is made? (3 pts)
12. Robeson speaks personally and emotionally about his own experience, while the Brown opinion speaks in general, impersonal legal terms about “the plaintiffs” and “the minority group.” What are the strengths and limitations of each approach for addressing racial injustice? (3 pts)
13. In what ways do these two sources agree about the effects of racism on Black Americans in the 1950s? Cite specific evidence from each. (3 pts)
14. Robeson accuses the Committee of un-American, “neo-Fascist” behavior, while the Court frames its ruling as an application of constitutional principle. What does each source suggest about who gets to define what is “American” or constitutional in this period? (3 pts)
Part D: Reflection
8 points
15. Both Paul Robeson and the Supreme Court challenged forms of racial inequality in the mid-1950s, but through very different means — Robeson through public defiance and protest, the Court through law. In a well-developed paragraph (5–7 sentences), discuss which approach you think was more effective for changing American society in this period, and why. Support your answer with evidence from both documents. (8 pts)
This worksheet asks you to analyze two primary sources — Paul Robeson’s 1956 HUAC testimony and the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision — and use them to understand two very different responses to race and rights in Cold War America. Primary-source analysis has a method; follow it and the worksheet questions almost answer themselves.
Key takeaways
- Use the historian’s method: source, context, close reading, corroboration.
- Robeson’s refusal and Fifth Amendment stance show defiance of state power; Brown shows change won through the courts — two strategies, same fight.
- Answer each worksheet question with a direct quote or specific detail, not a general impression.
- Place both sources in their Cold War context: anti-Communism, McCarthyism, and the early civil rights movement.
- Keep analysis and evidence separate — state the point, then prove it from the document.
Work the sources the way a historian does
For each document ask: Who produced it and why? When and where — what was happening? What does it actually say (read closely)? And how does it corroborate or conflict with the other source? Robeson is an individual resisting a government committee; Brown is the government itself (the Supreme Court) delivering change. Framing both against McCarthyism and the civil rights movement is the context the worksheet rewards.
Part A: Robeson’s testimony
Go line by line. For the reasons he gives for being called, quote him directly. For his refusal to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ explain the principle — he treated the question itself as illegitimate and invoked the Fifth Amendment to resist self-incrimination and the Committee’s authority. Tie his criticism of U.S. racism to why he saw the hearing as political persecution.
Part B: Brown v. Board
Identify the constitutional basis — the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause — and what the Court overturned (Plessy’s ‘separate but equal’). Explain the reasoning that segregation is inherently unequal.
Bringing the two together
The comparison is the payoff: two paths to justice — protest and legal challenge — in the same era. Note that even a landmark ruling met resistance, while a lone artist paid a price for speaking out. Close with what the pairing reveals about race and rights in Cold War America. See our citation guide if you must reference the sources formally.