As a result, the court pointed out, the plaintiff was held back in pursuit of his education, because he was unable to debate and discuss his ideas with other students and faculty, with the result that his ability to learn his chosen profession, teaching, was hampered. Appellant is a Negro citizen of Oklahoma. This appeal followed. The Voting Rights Act Age 17 The Voting Rights Act prohibits racial discrimination in voting. There is a vast differencea Constitutional differencebetween restrictions imposed by the state which prohibit the intellectual commingling of students, and the refusal of individuals to commingle where the state presents no such bar. In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, (339 U.S. 637, 70 S.Ct. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education, Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, United States v. Montgomery County Board of Education, Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education. basing his argument on the Fourteenth Amendment. 0000005065 00000 n Pursuant to a requirement of state law that the instruction of Negroes in institutions of higher education be "upon a segregated basis," however, he was assigned to a seat in the classroom in a row specified for Negro students, was assigned to a special table in the library, and, although permitted to eat in the cafeteria at the same time as other students, was assigned to a special table there. He is now assigned to a seat in the classroom in a row specified for colored students; he is assigned to a table in the library on the main floor; and he is permitted to eat at the same time in the cafeteria as other students, although here again he is assigned to a special table. His case set a precedent through which may laws regarding segregation were struck down. 1149, the Supreme Court had held that it was a denial of the equal protection guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment for a state to segregate on the ground of race a student who had been admitted to an institution of higher learning. The judgment is Reversed. However, the facilities and services used by African Americans were not equal to those of white Americans. Appellants case represents, perhaps, the epitome of that need, for he is attempting to obtain an advanced degree in education, to become, by definition, a leader and trainer of others. The court found that the university's inaction in providing separate facilities, in order to meet Oklahoma state law, allowing McLaurin to attend the institution was a violation of his Constitutional rights. WebMcLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents is a case that was decided on June 5, 1950, by the United States Supreme Court holding that a state cannot treat a student differently on the basis of race. Such reasoning, though common in courts up to that time, was about to lose all legitimacy. He may wait in line in the cafeteria and there stand and talk with his fellow students, but while he eats he must remain apart. But they signify that the State, in administering the facilities it affords for professional and graduate study, sets McLaurin apart from the other students. The removal of the state restrictions will not necessarily abate individual and group predilections, prejudices and choices. Following this decision, the Oklahoma legislature amended these statutes to permit the admission of Negroes to institutions of higher learning attended by white students, in cases where such institutions offered courses not available in the Negro schools. Appellant, having been admitted to a state-supported graduate school, must receive the same treatment at the hands of the state as students of other races. Create an account to start this course today. 0000071254 00000 n African American History: Research Guides & Websites, Global African History: Research Guides & Websites, African American Scientists and Technicians of the Manhattan Project, Envoys, Diplomatic Ministers, & Ambassadors, Foundation, Organization, and Corporate Supporters. He wanted to have an education that was similar to his peers. Their own education and development will necessarily suffer to the extent that his training is unequal to that of his classmates. Oklahoma had recently passed laws that made it illegal for black and white students to integrate or for black teachers to teach white students and vice versa. Subscribe Now. WebBoard of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 332 U.S. 631; cf. In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637, 70 S.Ct. I feel like its a lifeline. 526 (W. D. Okla. 1949). Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, Crawford v. Los Angeles Board of Education, Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, Northeastern Fla. Chapter, Associated Gen. The case was decided on June 5, 1950. 208, and Sipuel v. Board of Regents, 1948, 332 U.S. 631, 68 S.Ct. 4039. Argued April 3-4, 1950. Mr. Fred Hansen, Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellees. Xi Appellant is a Negro citizen of Oklahoma. 0000000836 00000 n 70 Okla. Stat. Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1948). '1 Appellant was thereupon admitted to the University of Oklahoma Graduate School. The ruling in McLaurin had major ramifications for both parties and went on to set a new precedent regarding segregation, especially with how it pertained to education. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337 (1938), and Sipuel v. Board of Regents, 332 U.S. 631 (1948), a statutory three-judge District Court held that the State had a Constitutional duty to provide him with the education he sought as soon as it provided that education for applicants of any other group. Reversing, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state could not treat a student differently from other students on the basis of race as theFourteenth Amendmentprecludes such differences in treatment. 0000067006 00000 n WebMcLaurin v. Okla. State Regents for Higher Educ. Mark Tushnet, Making Civil Rights Law: Thurgood Marshall and the Supreme Court, 19361961 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994). Gaines v. Canada, 1938, 305 U.S. 337, 59 S.Ct. Chief Justice Frederick Vinson delivered the opinion of the court. The case concerned a Black student who was treated differently than white students after being admitted to the graduate school at the University of Oklahoma. A small donation would help us keep this available to all. 836, 842, 92 L.Ed. 526 (1948) McLAURIN v. OKLAHOMA STATE REGENTS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION et al. Case Summary of Sweatt v. Painter: An African-American law school applicant was denied admission into the University of Texas Law School solely because of his race. We conclude that the conditions under which this appellant is required to receive his education deprive him of his personal and present right to the equal protection of the laws. 0000062655 00000 n The Court concluded that the conditions under which appellant were required to receive his education deprived him of his personal and present rights to the equal protection of the laws. 0000001099 00000 n The result is that appellant is handicapped in his pursuit of effective graduate instruction. McLaurin filed suit in federal court in Oklahoma City. (c) Having been admitted to a state-supported graduate school, appellant must receive the same treatment at the hands of the State as students of other races. %PDF-1.4 % Those who will come under his guidance and influence must be directly affected by the education he receives. This segregated him from his classmates and made group learning and discussions impossible. University Your donation is fully tax-deductible. (a) The restrictions imposed upon appellant impair and inhibit his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession. Pp. 1149), the Court, in requiring that a Negro admitted to a white graduate school be treated like all other students, again resorted to intangible considerations: his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession. See Sweatt v. Painter, ante, p. 629. Marian W. Perry and Franklin H. Williams were also of counsel. (2012.201.B0391.0687, Oklahoma Publishing Company Photography Collection, OHS). The result is that appellant is handicapped in his pursuit of effective graduate instruction. To remove these conditions, appellant filed a motion to modify the order and judgment of the District Court. In fact, as the court noted, the restrictions were designed to comply with the state statute that had required officials in institutions of higher education to treat students differently based on their races. OKLAHOMA STATE REGENTS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION ET AL, holding that a state sponsored graduate school's disparate treatment of an admitted black student based on his race violated the Equal Protection Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court held that "the conditions under which appellant is required to receive his education deprive him of his personal and present right to the equal protection of the laws, and the Fourteenth Amendment precludes such differences in treatment by the State based upon race.". 0000002024 00000 n The Court held that it was unconstitutional under the "equal protection clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment to deny McLaurin an equal education to the one his white peers were receiving. The result is that appellant is handicapped in his pursuit of effective graduate instruction. OF CORRECTIONS 2020 OK CIV APP 42 Case Number: 118004 Decided: 02/21/2020 Mandate Issued: 07/29/2020 DIVISION III THE 232, 83 L.Ed. In McLaurin, the Supreme Court found that an African-American student should be admitted to a white graduate school, and be treated like other students, because of the importance of his "ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and in general to learn his profession.". Click here to contact us for media inquiries, and please donate here to support our continued expansion. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously (90), on June 5, 1950, that racial segregation within the facilities and institutions of colleges and universities is inconsistent with the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. No. Al. The judgment is reversed. The intent of the 14th Amendment was to extend rights found in the Constitution to the states. 851, 94 L.Ed. See Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629, 70 S.Ct. Tech: Matt Latourelle Ryan Burch Kirsten Corrao Beth Dellea Travis Eden Tate Kamish Margaret Kearney Eric Lotto Joseph Sanchez. The result was that he was handicapped in his pursuit of effective graduate instruction. Decided June 5, 1950. As a result of the amended Oklahoma law, the plaintiff was assigned to sit in a row of classroom seats reserved for African American students, had to sit at an assigned table in the library, and, while he was allowed to eat in the cafeteria, he had a designated table. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950). This appeal followed. Following this decision, the Oklahoma legislature amended these statutes to permit the admission of Negroes to institutions of higher learning attended by white students, in cases where such institutions offered courses not available in the Negro schools. Accordingly, the high court reversed the decision of the U.S. District Court, requiring the University of Oklahoma to remove the restrictions under which McLaurin was attending the institution. Policy: Christopher Nelson Caitlin Styrsky Molly Byrne Jimmy McAllister Samuel Postell - Biography, Facts, Quotes & Accomplishments, Working Scholars Bringing Tuition-Free College to the Community. With them on the brief were Thurgood [339 U.S. 637, 638] Marshall and Frank D. Reeves. Robert L. Carter and Amos T. Hall argued the cause for appellant. (b) That appellant may still be set apart by his fellow students and may be in no better position when these restrictions are removed is irrelevant, for there is a constitutional difference between restrictions imposed by the State which prohibit the intellectual commingling of students and the refusal of students to commingle where the State presents no such bar. 232, 83 L.Ed. Pp. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) had made segregation a standard practice in much of the American South. In 1950 a unanimous Supreme Court ruled that McLaurin had not received equal treatment as required by the Constitution. 1149], the Court, in requiring that a Negro admitted to a white graduate school be treated like all other students, again resorted to intangible considerations: " his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession.". All rights reserved. Citing our decisions in Missouri ex rel. Klarman elaborates on the social, political, and economic factors that shaped the judicial rulings on this case, as well as the many ways in which the final But they signify that the State, in administering the facilities it affords for professional and graduate study, sets McLaurin apart from the other students. 528; 1949 U.S. These restrictions were obviously imposed in order to comply, as nearly as could be, with the statutory requirements of Oklahoma. 851, 339 U.S. 637, 94 L.Ed. While every effort has been made to follow citation style rules, there may be some discrepancies. This case together with Sweatt v. Painter, which was decided the same day, marked the end of the separate but equal doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson in graduate and professional education. This we think irrelevant. McLaurin appealed to the United States Supreme Court on the basis that he was being denied equal protection under the 14th Amendment. The amendment provided, however, that in such cases the program of instruction 'shall be given at such colleges or institutions of higher education upon a segregated basis. It is said that the separations imposed by the State in this case are in form merely nominal. The following (as per The Chicago Manual of Style, 17th edition) is the preferred citation for articles:Alfred L. Brophy, McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents (1950), The Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture, https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entry=MC034. WebMcLAURIN v. OKLAHOMA STATE REGENTS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION et al. The court summarily dismissed this argument, noting that the treatment set the plaintiff apart from other students, because he was still restricted as to where he could sit. Thus he was required to sit apart at a designated desk in an anteroom adjoining the classroom; to sit at a designated desk on the mezzanine floor of the library, but not to use the desks in the regular reading room; and to sit at a designated table and to eat at a different time from the other students in the school cafeteria. There is a vast differencea Constitutional differencebetween restrictions imposed by the state which prohibit the intellectual commingling of students, and the refusal of individuals to commingle where the state presents no such bar.
Angel Strawbridge Denim Jumpsuit,
How To Unlock Your Zodiac Powers,
Herschel Cobb Jr,
Articles M
