87 F. Supp. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents (1950) signaled that the Supreme Court would no longer tolerate any separate treatment of students based on their race. This appeal followed. 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. xb``c``nb`a`a`@ +s,p*X9 y g`4o@,``PPLJ1lacXq;_ MR endstream endobj 21 0 obj<> endobj 23 0 obj<>/XObject<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text/ImageC]/ExtGState<>/Properties<>>>>>>> endobj 24 0 obj<> endobj 25 0 obj<> endobj 26 0 obj<> endobj 27 0 obj<>stream 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. 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. 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. This precedent would be echoed in the 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education, which ruled that it was unconstitutional to segregate public schools. Id. In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, (339 U.S. 637, 70 S.Ct. These restrictions were obviously imposed in order to comply, as nearly as could be, with the statutory requirements of Oklahoma. 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. WebThe University of Oklahoma accepted George McLaurin to its graduate program in education, but separated him from other students. 70 Okla.Stat.Ann. The removal of the state restrictions will not necessarily abate individual and group predilections, prejudices and choices. We hold that under these circumstances the Fourteenth Amendment precludes differences in treatment by the state based upon race. [1] The unanimous decision was delivered on the same day as another case involving similar issues, Sweatt v. Painter. Eventually, McLaurin won admittance to the school, but the fight was far from over. BlackPast.org is a 501(c)(3) non-profit and our EIN is 26-1625373. In a unanimous decision authored by Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson, the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts decision. This we think irrelevant. To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member. 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. 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. 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: ". The result is that appellant is handicapped in his pursuit of effective graduate instruction. The Supreme Court made this decision unanimously in 1950. 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. 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. 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. Those who will come under his guidance and influence must be directly affected by the education he receives. Citing our decisions in Missouri ex rel. Appellant is a Negro citizen of Oklahoma. Heyne v. Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools. 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. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. Sweatt v. Painter: Summary, Decision & Significance, Feiner v. New York (1951): Case Brief, Significance & Facts, Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, Dennis v. United States: Summary, Significance & Decision, Stack v. Boyle (1951): Case Brief, Facts & Decision, Rochin v. California: Case Brief, Summary & Significance, Beauharnais v. Illinois: Summary & Dissent, United States v. Reynolds (1953): Summary & Dissenting Opinion, Hernandez v. Texas: Summary & Significance, Praxis Social Studies: Content Knowledge (5081) Prep, Praxis Earth and Space Sciences: Content Knowledge (5571) Prep, Praxis Core Academic Skills for Educators - Writing (5723): Study Guide & Practice, ILTS TAP - Test of Academic Proficiency (400): Practice & Study Guide, Praxis Biology: Content Knowledge (5235) Prep, Introduction to American Government: Certificate Program, Introduction to Counseling: Certificate Program, Praxis Business Education: Content Knowledge (5101) Prep, Sociology 103: Foundations of Gerontology, NY Regents Exam - Global History and Geography: Tutoring Solution, Jane Seymour & Henry VIII: Facts & History, The Battle of Lake Erie in 1813: Summary & Facts, Annapolis Convention of 1786: Definition & Overview, The Trent Affair of 1861: Definition & Summary, Invention of the Telegraph: History & Overview, Who Were Lewis and Clark? George W. McLaurin applied to the University of Oklahoma but was denied entry because he was African American. WebMcLaurin 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 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. 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 The student was assigned to seating in the classroom, library, and cafeteria that was specified for Black students. 526 (W.D. 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. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950) of City of Benton Harbor. 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. 0000067670 00000 n McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 87 F. Supp. All other trademarks and copyrights are the property of their respective owners. The case was decided on June 5, 1950. Further, the Court ruled that "discrimination had no place in education." 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. 526 (1948) McLAURIN v. OKLAHOMA STATE REGENTS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION et al. 24 chapters | basing his argument on the Fourteenth Amendment. (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. 0000002961 00000 n 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. 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. McLAURIN v. OKLAHOMA STATE REGENTS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION et al. Read More opinion of Vinson In Fred M. Vinson to white persons only ( Shelley v. Kraemer, 1948). In the interval between the decision of the court below and the hearing in this Court, the treatment afforded appellant was altered. Corrections? 208 (1938);, Full title:McLAURIN v . Get free summaries of new US Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox! All Rights Reserved. Al. 848. The federal court in Oklahoma City also stated that the purpose of the Constitution was not to abolish the differences between races. 455. 0000062061 00000 n The removal of the state restrictions will not necessarily abate individual and group predilections, prejudices and choices. The Act secured the right to vote for minorities in the South. The judgment is reversed. Create your account. WebThis case and McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637, 70 S.Ct. 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. Policy: Christopher Nelson Caitlin Styrsky Molly Byrne Jimmy McAllister Samuel Postell (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. McLAURIN v. OKLAHOMA STATE REGENTS FOR HIGHER The judgment below is. That court held that such treatment did not violate the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment and denied the motion. p\!Y.Ebt9/ z ^tGG"w N8f,SYU*Vn/ 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. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, 339 U.S. 637. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337, 59 S.Ct. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents helped to abolish this policy, specifically in colleges and universities. HWs* 2zjZm,Bk*y"_qc B*>.bjK\Tzk.7EWk9#@3F/]3w=# La\V&om76 BU@*F2Lb DMkLuyY)<8,!os2W 7$'X0AOq k U0k But they signify that the State, in administering the facilities it affords for professional and graduate study, sets McLaurin apart from the other students. However, McLaurin appealed and his case went to the U.S. Supreme Court. (1950) McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents. In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637, 70 S.Ct. Argued April 3-4, 1950. 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.". McLaurin won the right to attend the University of Oklahoma without being segregated in any way from his peers. That court held that such treatment did not violate the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment and denied the motion. 232, 83 L.Ed. The Fourteenth Amendment provides equal protection for citizens under the law. With him on the brief was Mac Q. Williamson, Attorney General. Sturdivant v. Blue Valley Unified Sch. Therefore, the Court ruled that higher institutions such as colleges and universities were prohibited from practicing segregation, as it violated equal protection in an educational setting. In this case, the Court found that the State of Oklahoma had set the plaintiff student apart from the other students. State-imposed restrictions which produce such inequalities cannot be sustained. In 1950 a unanimous Supreme Court ruled that McLaurin had not received equal treatment as required by the Constitution. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents - Wikipedia These restrictions were obviously imposed in order to comply, as nearly as could be, with the statutory requirements of Oklahoma. Oklahoma Historical Society800 Nazih Zuhdi Drive, Oklahoma City, OK 73105 | 405-521-2491Site Index | Contact Us | Privacy | Press Room | Website Inquiries, Get Updates in Your Inbox Keep up to date with our weekly newsletter delivered straight to your inbox. Contractors of America v. Jacksonville, Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 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. At school, he was made to sit at separate tables in his classes, the library, and the cafeteria. The judgment is, holding that a state-sponsored graduate school's disparate treatment of an African-American student based on race violated the Equal Protection Clause. Appellant, a Negro citizen of Oklahoma possessing a masters 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. 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.". Get a Britannica Premium subscription and gain access to exclusive content. , nor was it intended to enforce social equality between classes and races." 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. At that time, his application was denied, solely because of his race. Using sweeping language, the Supreme Court acknowledged that, because American society was changing, discrimination based on race had no place in education. Enrolling in a course lets you earn progress by passing quizzes and exams. 299, 92 L.Ed. 29hQbwy3Lp SWEATT v. PAINTER The proceedings below are stated in the opinion. 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. 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. [1], Chief Justice Frederick Vinson, writing for the court, argued that the actions of the University of Oklahoma violated the student's constitutional right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Can a state treat a student differently from other students solely because of race? 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. 34. Pp. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents - casetext.com Susan Cianci Salvatore (September 1, 2001), U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, Post Office, Courthouse, and Federal Office Building, NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, Sipuel v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, List of landmark African-American legislation, List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 339, public domain material from this U.S government document, National Historic Landmark Nomination: Bizzell Library, University of Oklahoma, Center for Analysis and Prediction of Storms, Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies, Julian P. Kanter Political Commercial Archive, Gaylord College of Journalism and Mass Communication, College of Atmospheric and Geographic Sciences, Weitzenhoffer Family College of Fine Arts. (1950) 455, 456, 457. 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." Our society grows increasingly complex, and our need for trained leaders increases correspondingly. McLaurin then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.[1][2]. The result is that appellant is handicapped in his pursuit of effective graduate instruction. 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 Stateimposed restrictions which produce such inequalities cannot be sustained. (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. The school authorities were required to exclude him by the Oklahoma statutes, 70 Okl.Stat. A Black individual was admitted to the graduate school at the University of Oklahoma to pursue a doctorate in education. It further held that to the extent the Oklahoma statutes denied him admission they were unconstitutional and void. Appellant is a Negro citizen of Oklahoma. His application was rejected because state law prohibited black Public facilities like bathrooms and water fountains were segregated. Click here to contact our editorial staff, and click here to report an error. Argued April 3, 4, 1950. McLaurin argued that due to this treatment, he was being deprived of his rights under the 14 Amendment. 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. Segregating a population also segregates the experiences and voices of that population. (2012.201.B0391.0687, Oklahoma Publishing Company Photography Collection, OHS). Our editors will review what youve submitted and determine whether to revise the article. Dictionary of American Family Names Patrick Hanks 2003, 2006. 851, 94 L.Ed. 0000004461 00000 n 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. The unanimous decision was delivered on the same day as another case involving similar issues, Sweatt v. Painter. 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. 0000001634 00000 n 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. 0000001099 00000 n HM0O0wz,['+hQ#H pt}~es9p~(/W3&5YfqL4Q7F:6[QcsWP\~)gLBsDhjB`9L[{kNu2[/(DSm:o_zX?aEEn^)}UXR}2 wF%. 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. (1950) McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents - blackpast.org See Sweatt v. Painter, ante, p. 629. - Biography, Facts, Quotes & Accomplishments, Working Scholars Bringing Tuition-Free College to the Community. Submit a Correction 526, 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. WebCanada, 305 U.S. 337 ; Sipuel v. Oklahoma, 332 U.S. 631 ; Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 ; McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 . Decided June 5, 1950. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents | US Law | LII / Legal [339 U.S. 637, 643]. 851 [ 94 L.Ed. This page was last edited on 18 March 2023, at 15:55. 0000067006 00000 n 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. We hold that under these circumstances the Fourteenth Amendment precludes differences in treatment by the state based upon race. The primary purpose of the 14th Amendment was to extend rights and protections found in the Constitution to the states. In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents [ 339 U.S. 637, 70 S.Ct. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents | Study.com 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. Omissions? [1], The Supreme Court decided unanimously to reverse the decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. Such reasoning, though common in courts up to that time, was about to lose all legitimacy. A small donation would help us keep this available to all. 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.
Montgomery County Tx Noise Ordinance Hours, Articles M