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. All Rights Reserved. No. 70 Okla.Stat.Ann. Users agree not to download, copy, modify, sell, lease, rent, reprint, or otherwise distribute these materials, or to link to these materials on another web site, without authorization of the Oklahoma Historical Society. Such restrictions impaired and inhibited his ability to study, to engage in discussions, exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession. 232, 83 L.Ed. McLaurin successfully sued in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma to gain admission to the institution (87 F. Supp. 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. 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. Their own education and development will necessarily suffer to the extent that his training is unequal to that of his classmates. 0000001099 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 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. That court held that such treatment did not violate the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment and denied the motion. It was not until 1950 that the Supreme Court ruled that the treatment must be equal between White and African American students. With them on the brief were Thurgood [339 U.S. 637, 638] Marshall and Frank D. Reeves. The student filed a complaint for injunctive relief, claiming that the statute was unconstitutional because it deprived him of equal protection of the laws. 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. trailer <]>> startxref 0 %%EOF 22 0 obj<>stream Their own education and development will necessarily suffer to the extent that his training is unequal to that of his classmates. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents (1950) was a case regarding higher education that was decided by the United States Supreme Court saying that colleges and universities could not segregate students under the Fourteenth Amendment. In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, supra [ 339 U.S. 637, 70 S.Ct. 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. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, https://www.britannica.com/event/McLaurin-v-Oklahoma-State-Regents, BlackPast - McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, Cornell Law School - Legal Information Institute - McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education. Chief Justice Frederick Vinson delivered the opinion of the court. 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. Discover the ruling of this important court case of 1950. WebSupreme Court case McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents School ruled that public institutions of higher learning could not discriminate due to race. 1149 (1950), the petitioner, who was black, was admitted to the state's formerly white only graduate school, but was compelled to sit in a "colored only" row in the classroom, a "colored only" table in the library and a "colored only" table for meals in the cafeteria. Id. McLaurin appealed to the United States Supreme Court on the basis that he was being denied equal protection under the 14th Amendment. 87 F.Supp. 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. In 2001, the Bizzell Memorial Library, the main library at the University of Oklahoma, was designated a U.S. National Historic Landmark in commemoration of this case. , nor was it intended to enforce social equality between classes and races." A Black individual was admitted to the graduate school at the University of Oklahoma to pursue a doctorate in education. Oklahoma. basing his argument on the Fourteenth Amendment. 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. In none of these cases was it necessary to re- examine the doctrine to grant relief to the Negro plaintiff. 0000062265 00000 n [339 U.S. 637, 643]. Their own education and development will necessarily suffer to the extent that his training is unequal to that of his classmates. of City of Benton Harbor. Al. Policy: Christopher Nelson Caitlin Styrsky Molly Byrne Jimmy McAllister Samuel Postell OF CORRECTIONS 2020 OK CIV APP 42 Case Number: 118004 Decided: 02/21/2020 Mandate Issued: 07/29/2020 DIVISION III THE The Justices acknowledged in their ruling that it is impossible to have a "separate yet equal" education because of the nature of education itself. 526 (W.D. 526 (1948) McLAURIN v. OKLAHOMA STATE REGENTS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION et al. This we think irrelevant. 455. 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. 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. The Supreme Court noted that the special treatment McLaurin received because of his race set him apart from the other students. 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. Messrs. Amos T. Hall, Tulsa, Okl., Robert L. Carter, Washington, D.C., for appellant. The sign that hung around the students sites in the classroom stating Reserved for Colored was removed, and he was assigned to a table on the main floor of the library; his previous table was on the mezzanine level. p\!Y.Ebt9/ z ^tGG"w N8f,SYU*Vn/ He was allowed to pursue his doctoral degree at the University of Oklahoma. The proceedings below are stated in the opinion. (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. 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 v. Oklahoma was one of the cases that helped to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson. McLaurin had to sit at a separate table in classrooms, the library, and the cafeteria. 851, 94 L.Ed. The court denied McLaurin's petition. Using sweeping language, the Supreme Court acknowledged that, because American society was changing, discrimination based on race had no place in education. (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. 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. Why it matters: The Supreme Court's decision in this case established that the Equal Protection Clause prohibited states from treating students differently on the basis of race. 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. Segregated basis is defined as 'classroom instruction given in separate classrooms, or at separate times.' We decide only this issue; see Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629, 70 S.Ct. McLaurin argued that due to this treatment, he was being deprived of his rights under the 14 Amendment. Click here to contact us for media inquiries, and please donate here to support our continued expansion. Marian W. Perry and Franklin H. Williams were also of counsel. Photo by Joe Ravi (CC-BY-SA 3.0) Appellant, a Supreme Court of the United States McLaurin v. Oklahoma U.S. Reports: McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 0000004461 00000 n Our editors will review what youve submitted and determine whether to revise the article. The Supreme Court also held that officials at the University of Oklahoma had violated the plaintiffs right to equal protection of the laws by denying him an education that was equal to that of his peers. This page was last edited on 18 March 2023, at 15:55. WebIn McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, McLaurin argued that the Fourteenth Amendment was being violated by how they were being treated. Can a state treat a student differently from other students solely because of race? Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer. 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. 0000062723 00000 n 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. In addition, the court ruled that, insofar as the restrictions that officials imposed on the student impaired and inhibited his ability to study and to engage in discussions and debates with other students as well as faculty, this treatment had a detrimental impact on his overall educational experience. At that time, his application was denied, solely because of his race. McLaurin filed an injunction in federal court with the argument that the University of Oklahoma had denied him his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. 0000001634 00000 n This appeal followed. Yes. Fred Hansen, First Assistant Attorney General of Oklahoma, argued the cause for appellees. 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.". 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. It further held that to the extent the Oklahoma statutes denied him admission they were unconstitutional and void. The studentfiled 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 himof the equal protection of the laws. The result is that appellant is handicapped in his pursuit of effective graduate instruction. 526. It is said that the separations imposed by the State in this case are in form merely nominal. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) had made segregation a standard practice in much of the American South. See Sweatt v. Painter, ante, p. 629. 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. Since McLauren did not have access to this aspect of his education, he was being denied an equal education to that of his peers. Pp. Possible Related Names Pitt Pitz 0000007159 00000 n The court thus concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment precluded the enforcement of the Oklahoma statute that required African American students to be treated differently from other students. George W. McLaurin(2012.201.B0391.0687, Oklahoma Publishing Company Photography Collection, OHS). 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. Sweatt v. Painter | law case | Britannica '1 Appellant was thereupon admitted to the University of Oklahoma Graduate School. [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. Those who will come under his guidance and influence must be directly affected by the education he receives. The school authorities were required to exclude him by the Oklahoma statutes, 70 Okl.Stat. The Voting Rights Act Age 17 The Voting Rights Act prohibits racial discrimination in voting. P. 339 U. S. 641. Omissions? George McLaurin sued for equal protection under the 14th Amendment. 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. Click here to contact our editorial staff, and click here to report an error. These restrictions were obviously imposed in order to comply, as nearly as could be, with the statutory requirements of Oklahoma. 0000001774 00000 n The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to segregate McLaurin from his peers. Kenneth has a JD, practiced law for over 10 years, and has taught criminal justice courses as a full-time instructor. 526 (W.D. Vinson contended that separating McLaurin from other students would hinder his ability to succeed in achieving higher education. Okla. 1948) U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma - 87 F. Supp. 0000067670 00000 n 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. Please select which sections you would like to print: Encyclopaedia Britannica's editors oversee subject areas in which they have extensive knowledge, whether from years of experience gained by working on that content or via study for an advanced degree. WebPeriodical U.S. Reports: McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950). 339 U. S. 640-641. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents - casetext.com Heyne's factual allegations state a plausible claim against Manuel for violation of his right to equal, Geier, 801 F.2d at 805.Missouri ex rel. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. (1950) 455, 456, 457. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher 836, 842, 92 L.Ed. Contractors of America v. Jacksonville, Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. Briefs of amici curiae, supporting appellant, were filed by Solicitor General Perlman and Philip Elman for the United States; Paul G. Annes for the American Federation of Teachers; Phineas Indritz for the American Veterans Committee, Inc.; Arthur J. Goldberg for the Congress of Industrial Organizations; Edward J. Ennis and Saburo Kido for the Japanese American Citizens League; and Arthur Garfield Hays and Eugene Nickerson for the American Civil Liberties Union. Marian W. Perry and Franklin H. Williams were also of counsel. State-imposed restrictions which produce such inequalities cannot be sustained. 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. This appeal followed. 87 F. Supp. 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.