Mr. Fred Hansen, Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellees. 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. We hold that under these circumstances the Fourteenth Amendment precludes differences in treatment by the state based upon race. At that time, his application was denied, solely because of his race. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA. (1950) McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents - blackpast.org [2][3] The case was heard in Oklahoma City at the Post Office, Courthouse, and Federal Office Building. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents For Higher Education v Such restrictions impair and inhibit his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession. 34. Public facilities like bathrooms and water fountains were segregated. U.S. Reports: McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. In apparent conformity with the amendment, his admission was made subject to 'such rules and regulations as to segregation as the President of the University shall consider to afford Mr. G. W. McLaurin substantially equal educational opportunities as are afforded to other persons seeking the same education in the Graduate College,' a condition which does not appear to have been withdrawn. This we think irrelevant. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents - Wikipedia 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. WebPainter and McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents [both 1950]). To read more about the impact of McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents click here. Although the court declared that the statute allowing officials to deny the student admission to the program was null and void, it refused to grant his request for an injunction, assuming that officials would follow the constitutional mandate in its order. (2012.201.B0391.0687, Oklahoma Publishing Company Photography Collection, OHS). Those who will come under his guidance and influence must be directly affected by the education he receives. 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 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. 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. P. 642. On the assumption, however, that the State would follow the constitutional mandate, the court refused to grant the injunction, retaining jurisdiction of the cause with full power to issue any necessary and proper orders to secure McLaurin the equal protection of the laws. The Supreme Court reasoned that, under the Fourteenth Amendments equal protection clause, state officials had the legal duty to treat the plaintiff in the same manner as students of other races. basing his argument on the Fourteenth Amendment. Possessing a Masters Degree, he applied for admission to the University of Oklahoma in order to pursue studies and courses leading to a Doctorate in Education. Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 13 -14 (1948). 299, 92 L.Ed. Marian W. Perry and Franklin H. Williams were also of counsel. McLaurin uses the same classroom, library and cafeteria as students of other races; there is no indication that the seats to which he is assigned in these rooms have any disadvantage of location. In this case, we are faced with the question whether a state may, after admitting a student to graduate instruction in its state university, afford him different treatment from other students solely because of his race. Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1948). Held: 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. 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. (1941) 455, 456, 457, which made it a misdemeanor to maintain or operate, teach or attend a school at which both whites and Negroes are enrolled or taught. Create an account to start this course today. P. 641. 34. Id. 851, present different aspects of this general question: To what extent does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limit the power of a state to distinguish between students of different races in professional and graduate education in a state university? Al. Further, the Court ruled that "discrimination had no place in education." (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. Appellant, a Negro citizen of Oklahoma possessing a master's degree, was admitted to the Graduate School of the state-supported University of Oklahoma as a candidate for a doctorate in education and was permitted to use the same classroom, library and cafeteria as white students. (1950) Henderson v. United States Et. For some time, the section of the classroom in which appellant sat was surrounded by a rail on which there was a sign stating, 'Reserved For Colored,' but these have been removed. 1149 McLAURIN v. OKLAHOMA STATE Pp. While every effort has been made to follow citation style rules, there may be some discrepancies. He had to sit by himself in a separate section of the classroom, sit at a separate desk in the library, and sit at a different table (and sometimes eat at different times) from the rest of the students in the cafeteria. WebIn McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, McLaurin argued that the Fourteenth Amendment was being violated by how they were being treated. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents | Study.com 24 chapters | Mark Tushnet, Making Civil Rights Law: Thurgood Marshall and the Supreme Court, 19361961 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994). 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. Submit a Correction WebMcLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents 2,513 views Jul 7, 2016 29 Dislike Share Save OU IACH 2.33K subscribers In this lecture, professor Kathryn Schumaker reviews the 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. Terms of Use About the Encyclopedia. The student was assigned to seating in the classroom, library, and cafeteria that was specified for Black students. 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. Appellant filed a complaint requesting injunctive relief, alleging that the action of the school authorities and the statutes upon which their action was based were unconstitutional and deprived him [339 U.S. 637, 639] of the equal protection of the laws. The removal of the state restrictions will not necessarily abate individual and group predilections, prejudices and choices. McLaurin v. Okla. State Regents for Higher Educ. | Case Brief for 1149 *637 **852 WebMcLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education et al. 0000001037 00000 n WebCanada, 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 We decide only this issue; see Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629, 70 S.Ct. Dist.) 0000071802 00000 n Individual users must determine if their use of the Materials falls under United States copyright law's "Fair Use" guidelines and does not infringe on the proprietary rights of the Oklahoma Historical Society as the legal copyright holder of The Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and part or in whole. 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. His application was rejected because state law prohibited black 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. 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. [339 U.S. 637, 643]. State-imposed restrictions which produce such inequalities cannot be sustained. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. Get free summaries of new US Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox! Out of this came the "separate but equal" policies of the post-Reconstruction South. Contractors of America v. Jacksonville, Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. The school authorities were required to exclude him by the Oklahoma statutes, 70 Okla. Stat. Those who will come under his guidance and influence must be directly affected by the education he receives. Oklahoma State Regents . Oklahoma. of City of Benton Harbor. 0000001099 00000 n The court did not believe that it was Constitutional to integrate different races and social classes. Their own education and development will necessarily suffer to the extent that his training is unequal to that of his classmates. The court denied McLaurin's petition. In an opinion marked by balance, even caution, a three-judge panel struck down the law, to the extent that it prohibited McLaurin from attending the University of Oklahoma. Omissions? 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. Segregated basis is defined as 'classroom instruction given in separate classrooms, or at separate times.' This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. At the time, Oklahoma law prohibited schools from instructing blacks and whites together. 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. Heyne v. Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools. Create your account. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950), was a United States Supreme Court case that prohibited racial segregation in state supported graduate or professional education. The U.S. Supreme Court heard McLaurin's appeal in April 1950 and in June unanimously reversed the lower court. Corrections? All rights reserved. Appellant's 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. At that time, his application was denied, solely because of his race. [3], McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents established that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited states from treating students differently on the basis of race. George W. McLaurin(2012.201.B0391.0687, Oklahoma Publishing Company Photography Collection, OHS). Such restrictions impair and inhibit his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession. 20 0 obj <> endobj xref 20 27 0000000016 00000 n The federal court in Oklahoma City also stated that the purpose of the Constitution was not to abolish the differences between races. George McLaurin sued for equal protection under the 14th Amendment. McLaurin won the right to attend the University of Oklahoma without being segregated in any way from his peers. Argued April 3-4, 1950. 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. McLaurin decided to file a suit under the assertion that the conditions under which he was required to receive his education deprived him of his personal right to the equal protection of the laws; and the Fourteenth Amendment eliminates racially biased treatment by the State (638-642). The University admitted McLaurin but provided him separate facilities, including a special table in the cafeteria, a designated desk in the library, a desk just outside the classroom doorway, and sometimes even made him eat at different times than the other students. McLaurin v. Oklahoma was one of the cases that helped to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson. 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 further held that to the extent the Oklahoma statutes denied him admission they were unconstitutional and void. v With him on the brief was Mac Q. Williamson, Attorney General. In this case, we are faced with the question whether a state may, after admitting a student to graduate instruction in its state university, afford him different treatment from other students solely because of his race. Argued April 3-4, 1950. . No. In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, supra, 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.". WebThis case and McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637, 70 S.Ct. Ann. Fred Hansen, First Assistant Attorney General of Oklahoma, argued the cause for appellees. In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, supra [ 339 U.S. 637, 70 S.Ct. The decision in this case was made in conjunction with Sweatt v. Painter and later influenced the decision in Brown v. Board of Education.[1]. 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. 0000001634 00000 n All Rights Reserved. Those who will come under his guidance and influence must be directly affected by the education he receives. Okla. 1948) U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma - 87 F. Supp. State-imposed restrictions which produce such inequalities cannot be sustained. There is a vast difference a Constitutional difference between 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. 0000071254 00000 n McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents (1950) was a case regarding higher education that was decided by the United States Supreme Court saying that colleges (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. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank, Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, John F. Kennedy's speech to the nation on Civil Rights, Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, Chicago Freedom Movement/Chicago open housing movement, Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights, Council for United Civil Rights Leadership, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), "Woke Up This Morning (With My Mind Stayed On Freedom)", List of lynching victims in the United States, Spring Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam, African American founding fathers of the United States, Birmingham Civil Rights National Monument, Medgar and Myrlie Evers Home National Monument, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McLaurin_v._Oklahoma_State_Regents&oldid=1145333954, African-American history between emancipation and the civil rights movement, United States racial desegregation case law, United States Supreme Court cases of the Vinson Court, Wikipedia articles incorporating text from public domain works of the United States Government, Short description is different from Wikidata, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. The result is that appellant is handicapped in his pursuit of effective graduate instruction. 0000006506 00000 n At school, he was made to sit at separate tables in his classes, the library, and the cafeteria. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents helped to abolish this policy, specifically in colleges and universities. 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. Citing our decisions in Missouri ex rel. Sweatt v. Painter (1950) - The Papers of Justice Tom C. Clark It is said that the separations imposed by the State in this case are in form merely nominal. Fred Hansen, First Assistant Attorney General of Oklahoma, argued the cause for appellees. 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. He was allowed to pursue his doctoral degree at the University of Oklahoma. 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. These restrictions were obviously imposed in order to comply, as nearly as could be, with the statutory requirements of Oklahoma. McLaurin v. Oklahoma ( 1950) | History 404: US Constitution McLaurin filed an injunction in federal court with the argument that the University of Oklahoma had denied him his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. '1 Appellant was thereupon admitted to the University of Oklahoma Graduate School. The judgment is Reversed. - 339 U.S. 637, 70 S. Ct. 851 (1950) Rule: Where conditions exist where a student of color is required to receive his See Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629, 70 S.Ct. But they signify that the State, in administering the facilities it affords for professional and graduate study, sets McLaurin apart from the other students. It further held that to the extent the Oklahoma statutes denied him admission they were unconstitutional and void. Ablack citizen of Oklahoma possessing a master's degree was admitted to the Graduate School of the state-supported University of Oklahoma as a candidate for a doctorate in education and was permitted to use the same classroom, library and cafeteria as white students. On June 5, 1950, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a public institution of higher learning could not provide different treatment to a student solely because of his/her race as doing so deprived the student of his/her Fourteenth Amendment rights of Equal Protection. On January 28, 1948, a retired black professor, George McLaurin, applied to the University of Oklahoma to pursue a Doctorate in Education. P. 339 U. S. 642. 528. 320 lessons. But they signify that the State, in administering the facilities it affords for professional and graduate study, sets McLaurin apart from the other students. - Biography, Facts, Quotes & Accomplishments, Working Scholars Bringing Tuition-Free College to the Community. 232, 83 L.Ed. 70 Okla. Stat. 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. Sweatt v. Painter | law case | Britannica Research: Josh Altic Vojsava Ramaj McLaurin argued that due to this treatment, he was being deprived of his rights under the 14 Amendment. 0000067006 00000 n Copyright to all of these materials is protected under United States and International law. Decided June 5, 1950. WebBoard of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 332 U.S. 631; cf. Using sweeping language, the Supreme Court acknowledged that, because American society was changing, discrimination based on race had no place in education. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 87 F. Supp. O'Gorman & Young, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. OF CORRECTIONS 2020 OK CIV APP 42 Case Number: 118004 Decided: 02/21/2020 Mandate Issued: 07/29/2020 DIVISION III THE Appellant is a Negro citizen of Oklahoma. Where a black student was admitted to a state-supported graduate school, he must receive the same treatment at the hands ofthe state as students of other races. WebSupreme Court case McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents School ruled that public institutions of higher learning could not discriminate due to race. Footnotes 0000062265 00000 n In a 5-4 opinion written by Justice Louis Powell, the Court held that the trial court erred when it failed to consider mitigating evidence of Eddings unhappy childhood and emotional disturbance. 526. 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. It further held that to the extent the Oklahoma statutes denied him admission they were unconstitutional and void. The Act secured the right to vote for minorities in the South. Tech: Matt Latourelle Ryan Burch Kirsten Corrao Beth Dellea Travis Eden Tate Kamish Margaret Kearney Eric Lotto Joseph Sanchez. Thus, our second decision in the Brown case, 349 U.S. 294, which implemented the earlier one, had no application to a case involving a Negro applying for admission to a state law school. 339 U. S. 640-641. This segregated him from his classmates and made group learning and discussions impossible. (1941) 455, 456, 457, which made it a misdemeanor to maintain or operate, teach or attend a school at which both whites and Negroes are enrolled or taught. Their own education and development will necessarily suffer to the extent that his training is unequal to that of his classmates. WebOther articles where Sweatt v. Painter is discussed: Brown v. Board of Education: Decision: the Supreme Courts rulings in Sweatt v. Painter (1950) and McLaurin v. Oklahoma Click here to contact our editorial staff, and click here to report an error. 848. In this case, we are faced with the question whether a state may, after admitting a student to graduate instruction in its state university, afford him different treatment from other students solely because of his race. Segregating a population also segregates the experiences and voices of that population. By segregating him, he was unable to engage in discussions and share his viewpoints, and these restrictions made it difficult to work and learn. (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. 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. . Marian W. Perry and Franklin H. Williams were also of counsel.