87 F. Supp. 0000001037 00000 n The judgment is reversed. 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. 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. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents - casetext.com McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents (1950) signaled that the Supreme Court would no longer tolerate any separate treatment of students based on their race. WebMcLaurin v. Okla. State Regents for Higher Educ. 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. McLAURIN v. OKLAHOMA STATE REGENTS FOR HIGHER 0000067207 00000 n Our society grows increasingly complex, and our need for trained leaders increases correspondingly. 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. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) had made segregation a standard practice in much of the American South. Appellant was thereupon admitted to the University of Oklahoma Graduate School. The individual filed a complaint on the grounds that his right to equal protection had been violated by the school's actions. 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. But they signify that the State, in administering the facilities it affords for professional and graduate study, sets McLaurin apart from the other students. McLaurin v. Oklahoma ( 1950) | History 404: US Constitution P. 339 U. S. 641. (1950) McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents - blackpast.org 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. Oklahoma. 851 [ 94 L.Ed. R(/LS S!|9Md(Bz_&zKCq(x, 2*V)Aac!:! 87 F. Supp. 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. A Black individual was admitted to the graduate school at the University of Oklahoma to pursue a doctorate in education. WebMCLAURIN v. OKLAHOMA STATE REGENTS, 339 U.S. 637 (1950) Reset A A Font size: Print United States Supreme Court McLAURIN v. OKLAHOMA STATE REGENTS Segregated basis is defined as 'classroom instruction given in separate classrooms, or at separate times.' In the interval between the decision of the court below and the hearing in this Court, the treatment afforded appellant was altered. A small donation would help us keep this available to all. Marian W. Perry and Franklin H. Williams were also of counsel. Those who will come under his guidance and influence must be directly affected by the education he receives. The proceedings below are stated in the opinion. This precedent would be echoed in the 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education, which ruled that it was unconstitutional to segregate public schools. copyright 2003-2023 Study.com. The Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture, Oklahoma Heritage Preservation Grant Program. State survey of the federal grant review process, State responses to the federal grant review process survey, 2021, State responses by question to the federal grant review process survey, 2021, Federalism by the numbers: Federal mandates, Federalism by the numbers: Federal grants-in-aid, Federalism by the numbers: Federal information collection requests, Overview of federal spending during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, Full text of case syllabus and opinions (Justia), Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy, https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=McLaurin_v._Oklahoma_State_Regents&oldid=8950237, Pages using DynamicPageList3 dplreplace parser function, Federalism court cases, equal protection clause, Conflicts in school board elections, 2021-2022, Special Congressional elections (2023-2024), 2022 Congressional Competitiveness Report, State Executive Competitiveness Report, 2022, State Legislative Competitiveness Report, 2022, Partisanship in 2022 United States local elections. No. 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). Yes. The result is that appellant is handicapped in his pursuit of effective graduate instruction. 208, and Sipuel v. Board of Regents, 1948, 332 U.S. 631, 68 S.Ct. US Supreme Court. 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. Sweatt v. Painter 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. Citing our decisions in State of Missouri ex rel. On appeal, the Supreme Court focused on the question of whether officials could treat a student at a state university differently from other students based solely on his race. WebThe school districts appealed, claiming that the federal courts did not have jurisdiction over education, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately upheld McCormicks decision on April 14, 1947, ruling that the schools actions violated California law. 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. AFRICAN AMERICANS, BROOKSVILLE, CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT, ROSCOE DUNJEE, ADA LOIS SIPUEL FISHER, AMOS T. HALL, NAACP, SEGREGATION, UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA. During the time between the students filing of his appeal and the Supreme Courts having conducted oral arguments, university officials modified their treatment of the plaintiff. The school authorities were required to exclude him by the Oklahoma statutes, 70 Okla. Stat. 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. Further, the Court ruled that "discrimination had no place in education." In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents (1949), 339 U.S. 637 [70 S.Ct. In this ruling and its companion case, Sweatt v. Painter, decided on the same day, the Supreme Court held that African American students must receive the same treatment as all other students in the realm of higher education. 339 U. S. 638-642. His application was rejected because state law prohibited black While every effort has been made to follow citation style rules, there may be some discrepancies. BlackPast.org is a 501(c)(3) non-profit and our EIN is 26-1625373. 0000001099 00000 n 851, 94 L.Ed. Out of this came the "separate but equal" policies of the post-Reconstruction South. 528. 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. A three-judge federal trial court determined that officials in Oklahoma had a constitutional duty to provide the plaintiff with the education he wanted as soon as they offered the same to students of any other race. This includes individual articles (copyright to OHS by author assignment) and corporately (as a complete body of work), including web design, graphics, searching functions, and listing/browsing methods. Please refer to the appropriate style manual or other sources if you have any questions. 851, 94 L.Ed. The Fourteenth Amendment provides equal protection for citizens under the law. 70 Okla.Stat.Ann. This appeal followed. See Sweatt v. Painter, ante, p. 629. 0000067670 00000 n 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. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, an important case leading up to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education, struck down the Oklahoma statute that mandated segregation in education. McLAURIN v. OKLAHOMA STATE REGENTS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION et al. 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. Al. Tech: Matt Latourelle Ryan Burch Kirsten Corrao Beth Dellea Travis Eden Tate Kamish Margaret Kearney Eric Lotto Joseph Sanchez. With them on the brief were Thurgood 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. In the interval between the decision of the court below and the hearing in this Court, the treatment afforded appellant was altered. Those who will come under his guidance and influence must be directly affected by the education he receives. McLaurin v Okla. 1948) U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma - 87 F. Supp. The court denied McLaurin's petition. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents (1950) was a case regarding higher education that was decided by the United States Supreme Court saying that colleges WebPeriodical U.S. Reports: McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950). 232, 83 L.Ed. 70 Okla. Stat. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950). 0000007159 00000 n (1950) McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents. 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. She has been a classroom teacher for the past ten years. McLaurin won the right to attend the University of Oklahoma without being segregated in any way from his peers. Gaines v. Canada, 1938, 305 U.S. 337, 59 S.Ct. By segregating him, he was unable to engage in discussions and share his viewpoints, and these restrictions made it difficult to work and learn. 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. Download: About this Item Title U.S. Reports: McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, McLaurin The plaintiff, George W. McLaurin, who already had a master's degree in education, was first denied admission to the University of Oklahoma to pursue a Doctorate in Education degree. 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. 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]. 455. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337, 59 S.Ct. 0000002961 00000 n 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. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents | Study.com [ Footnote 1 ] The amendment adds the following proviso to each of the sections relating to mixed schools: Provided, that the provisions of this Section shall not apply to programs of instruction leading to a particular degree given at State owned or operated colleges or institutions of higher education of this State established for and/or used by the white race, where such programs of instruction leading to a particular degree are not given at colleges or institutions of higher education of this State established for and/or used by the colored race; provided further, that said programs of instruction leading to a particular degree shall be given at such colleges or institutions of higher education upon a segregated basis. 70 Okla. Stat. 528; 1949 U.S. Possessing a Master's Degree, he applied for admission to the University of Oklahoma in order to pursue studies and courses leading to a Doctorate in Education. WebIn 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: ". McLaurin v. Okla. State Regents for Higher Educ. | Case Brief for HWs* 2zjZm,Bk*y"_qc B*>.bjK\Tzk.7EWk9#@3F/]3w=# La\V&om76 BU@*F2Lb DMkLuyY)<8,!os2W 7$'X0AOq k U0k The judgment below is reversed, p. 339 U. S. 642. 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 [1]. We hold that under these circumstances the Fourteenth Amendment precludes differences in treatment by the state based upon race. 29hQbwy3Lp The court did not believe that it was Constitutional to integrate different races and social classes. She is certified in English and Special Education. US Supreme Court Opinions and Cases | FindLaw 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. 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. 526. 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. [339 U.S. 637, 643]. 247, a statutory three-judge District Court held, 87 F.Supp. Primary Document. 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 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." Learn about the court case of McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents with a summary and case brief. State-imposed restrictions which produce such inequalities cannot be sustained. Segregated basis is defined as classroom instruction given in separate classrooms, or at separate times. Id. 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. Mendez v. Westminster Court Ruling 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. Shelley v. Kraemer At that time, his application was denied, solely because of his race. 0000001912 00000 n 528. Submit a Correction Citing our decisions in Missouri ex rel. [2], Oral argument was held between April 3, 1950, and April 4, 1950. The school authorities were required to exclude him by the Oklahoma statutes, 70 Okla. Stat. It is said that the separations imposed by the State in this case are in form merely nominal. It further held that to the extent the Oklahoma statutes denied him admission they were unconstitutional and void. 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. McLAURIN v. OKLAHOMA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS :: 2020 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. In the interval between the decision of the court below and the hearing in this Court, the treatment afforded appellant was altered. To remove these conditions, appellant filed a motion to modify the order and judgment of the District Court. 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. 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. P. 641. Pp. . In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, supra [ 339 U.S. 637, 70 S.Ct. Their own education and development will necessarily suffer to the extent that his training is unequal to that of his classmates. Sturdivant v. Blue Valley Unified Sch. WebIn McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, McLaurin argued that the Fourteenth Amendment was being violated by how they were being treated. U.S. Supreme Court Cases: Study Guide & Review, Johnson v. Eisentrager: Case Brief & Summary, Psychological Research & Experimental Design, All Teacher Certification Test Prep Courses, Ruling of McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents. 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. 1149 (1950), the African-American plaintiff was a graduate student who claimed he had been denied equal educational opportunities because he was required to sit in special seats or at a special table designated for African-Americans. 0000062061 00000 n 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? WebMcLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Ed., 87 F. Supp. Pp. Decided June 5, 1950. Forego a bottle of soda and donate its cost to us for the information you just learned, and feel good about helping to make it available to everyone. 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. 4039. It is said that the separations imposed by the State in this case are in form merely nominal. Okla. 1948) October 6, 1948 87 F. Supp. Ronald David Roberts (19431982) FamilySearch McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950). McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, 339 U.S. 637. 87 F. Supp. Supreme Court 339 U.S. 637 70 S.Ct. Those who will come under his guidance and influence must be directly affected by the education he receives. 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. 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. Dictionary of American Family Names Patrick Hanks 2003, 2006. SWEATT v. PAINTER 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. v McLAURINv.OKLAHOMA STATE REGENTS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION et al. (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. Id. That court held that such treatment did not violate the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment and denied the motion. 455. The intent of the 14th Amendment was to extend rights found in the Constitution to the states. Dist.) if(document.getElementsByClassName("reference").length==0) if(document.getElementById('Footnotes')!==null) document.getElementById('Footnotes').parentNode.style.display = 'none'; Communications: Alison Graves Carley Allensworth Abigail Campbell Sarah Groat Erica Shumaker Caitlin Vanden Boom 0000062723 00000 n 208 (1938);, Full title:McLAURIN v . McLaurin v. Oklahoma was one of the cases that helped to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson. His opinion for the court in 1947 upheld the power of the federal courts to enjoin a strike in coal mines then under control of the federal government. Even though the university could no longer deny McLaurin a place in school, it tried to segregate him on campus. See Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629, 70 S.Ct. Supreme Court of the United States McLaurin v. Oklahoma 0000006506 00000 n The following state regulations pages link to this page. McLaurin 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. - Biography, Facts, Quotes & Accomplishments, Working Scholars Bringing Tuition-Free College to the Community. Decided June 5, 1950. At that time, his application was denied, solely because of his race. 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. Appellant is a Negro citizen of Oklahoma. 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. 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 of the equal protection of the laws. The unanimous decision was delivered on the same day as another case involving similar issues, Sweatt v. Painter. 1149], it appeared that appellant was admitted as a graduate student at the University of Oklahoma, but in the classroom was required to sit in a row specified for colored students; in the library, he was assigned a special table; and in the cafeteria he was required to sit at a table apart from other students. 34. In none of these cases was it necessary to re- examine the doctrine to grant relief to the Negro plaintiff. Since McLauren did not have access to this aspect of his education, he was being denied an equal education to that of his peers. The result is that appellant is handicapped in his pursuit of effective graduate instruction. Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1948). Pp. It may be argued that appellant will be in no better position when these restrictions are removed, for he may still be set apart by his fellow students. WebSupreme Court case McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents School ruled that public institutions of higher learning could not discriminate due to race. Your donation is fully tax-deductible. 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. WebG.W. We decide only this issue; see Sweatt v. Painter, ante, p. 629. 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. This we think irrelevant. His case set a precedent through which may laws regarding segregation were struck down. George McLaurin George McLaurin was the first African American student admitted to the University of Oklahoma. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents | Case Brief, Summary With them on the brief were Thurgood [339 U.S. 637, 638] Marshall and Frank D. Reeves. In response, legislators in Oklahoma amended the statute, permitting African Americans to be admitted to educational institutions provided that the instruction the institutions provided was upon a segregated basis. The student was then admitted to the graduate school of the University of Oklahoma, a state-funded institution. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 87 F. Supp. WebMcLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950) McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents - YouTube 0000071278 00000 n Their own education and development will necessarily suffer to the extent that his training is unequal to that of his classmates. It may be argued that appellant will be in no better position when these restrictions are removed, for he may still be set apart by his fellow students. 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.