0000067006 00000 n To read more about the impact of McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents click here. The removal of the state restrictions will not necessarily abate individual and group predilections, prejudices and choices. p\!Y.Ebt9/ z ^tGG"w N8f,SYU*Vn/ Hoping to earn a doctorate in education, he applied for admission to graduate study at Oklahoma's all 0000007159 00000 n 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 - 339 U.S. 637, 70 S. Ct. 851 (1950) Rule: Where conditions exist where a student of color is required to receive his We decide only this issue; see Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629, 70 S.Ct. Fred Hansen, First Assistant Attorney General of Oklahoma, argued the cause for appellees. Photo by Joe Ravi (CC-BY-SA 3.0) Appellant, a 1, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney, Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan. 0000001912 00000 n 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. 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. Shelley v. Kraemer, 1948, 334 U.S. 1, 13-14, 68 S.Ct. 208 (1938);, Full title:McLAURIN v . D G zmS& endstream endobj 28 0 obj<>stream (1941) 455, 456, 457, that the instruction of black students 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 black 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. While every effort has been made to follow citation style rules, there may be some discrepancies. McLaurin won the right to attend the University of Oklahoma; however, Oklahoma simply amended its laws to say that while African Americans could attend white institutions, they must be segregated. 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. 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. Updates? McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950). The Supreme Court noted that the special treatment McLaurin received because of his race set him apart from the other students. - Discoveries, Timeline & Facts, Presidential Election of 1848: Summary, Candidates & Results, Lord Charles Cornwallis: Facts, Biography & Quotes, Charles Maurice de Talleyrand: Quotes & Biography, Who is Jose de San Martin? To remove these conditions, appellant filed a motion to modify the order and judgment of the District Court. 526 (1948) McLAURIN v. OKLAHOMA STATE REGENTS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION et al. In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637, 70 S.Ct. basing his argument on the Fourteenth Amendment. At the time, Oklahoma law prohibited schools from instructing blacks and whites together. 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. Their own education and development will necessarily suffer to the extent that his training is unequal to that of his classmates. 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. 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. 0000001037 00000 n 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. Public facilities like bathrooms and water fountains were segregated. 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. 232, 83 L.Ed. 70 S.Ct. (1950) Henderson v. United States Et. The Voting Rights Act Age 17 The Voting Rights Act prohibits racial discrimination in voting. Policy: Christopher Nelson Caitlin Styrsky Molly Byrne Jimmy McAllister Samuel Postell Marian W. Perry and Franklin H. Williams were also of counsel. copyright 2003-2023 Study.com. WebPeriodical U.S. Reports: McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950). All other trademarks and copyrights are the property of their respective owners. 851 94 L.Ed. Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 13 -14 (1948). 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. 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. '1 Appellant was thereupon admitted to the University of Oklahoma Graduate School. 0000003722 00000 n The removal of the state restrictions will not necessarily abate individual and group predilections, prejudices and choices. He wanted to have an education that was similar to his peers. [1], The Supreme Court decided unanimously to reverse the decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. 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. In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, 339 U.S. 637, 70 S.Ct. 0000071802 00000 n The Court held that it was unconstitutional under the "equal protection clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment to deny McLaurin an equal education to the one his white peers were receiving. 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 to 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 segregated him from his classmates and made group learning and discussions impossible. This appeal followed. This would set a precedent for future legal issues about segregation, including the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education a few years later. trailer <]>> startxref 0 %%EOF 22 0 obj<>stream 34. 0000067670 00000 n Both students sued, and the U.S. In the interval between the decision of the court below and the hearing in this Court, the treatment afforded appellant was altered. 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. We hold that under these circumstances the Fourteenth Amendment precludes differences in treatment by the state based upon race. 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. In the McLaurin case, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the University of Oklahoma had violated the equal protection clause because the experience needed for a good education could not be accomplished by physically separating McLaurin. - Biography, Facts, Quotes & Accomplishments, Working Scholars Bringing Tuition-Free College to the Community. (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. OF CORRECTIONS 2020 OK CIV APP 42 Case Number: 118004 Decided: 02/21/2020 Mandate Issued: 07/29/2020 DIVISION III THE WebMcLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950) McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education. Corrections? Omissions? 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 was thereupon admitted to the University of Oklahoma Graduate School. 836, 842, 92 L.Ed. 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. 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. 20 0 obj <> endobj xref 20 27 0000000016 00000 n 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. 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. See Sweatt v. Painter, ante, p. 629. 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 851, 94 L.Ed. Research: Josh Altic Vojsava Ramaj 851, 94 L.Ed. A small donation would help us keep this available to all. Can a state treat a student differently from other students solely because of race? 854] the Supreme Court struck down "restrictions imposed by the state which prohibit the intellectual commingling of students," not social commingling or commingling generally. In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents (1949), 339 U.S. 637 [70 S.Ct. Enrolling in a course lets you earn progress by passing quizzes and exams. Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc. Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, Inyo County v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community, Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee. We decide only this issue; see Sweatt v. Painter, ante, p. 629. United States District Court W. D. [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. Subscribe Now. McLaurin then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. No part of this site may be construed as in the public domain. %PDF-1.4 % 1149 *637 **852 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. Segregating a population also segregates the experiences and voices of that population. On January 28, 1948, a retired black professor, George McLaurin, applied to the University of Oklahoma to pursue a Doctorate in Education. 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. BlackPast.org is a 501(c)(3) non-profit and our EIN is 26-1625373. In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637, 70 S.Ct. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.[1][2]. The proceedings below are stated in the opinion. No. This we think irrelevant. The litigation in McLaurin began to take shape when George W. McLaurin, an African American student with a masters degree, applied for admission to the University of Oklahoma in pursuit of a doctorate in education but was denied entry solely because of his race. 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. 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 proceedings below are stated in the opinion. 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. The student filed a complaint for injunctive relief, claiming that the statute was unconstitutional because it deprived him of equal protection of the laws. His case set a precedent through which may laws regarding segregation were struck down. 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. The result is that appellant is handicapped in his pursuit of effective graduate instruction. 0000001634 00000 n The Act secured the right to vote for minorities in the South. This appeal followed. 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. At that time, his application was denied, solely because of his race. 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. 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 [339 U.S. 637, 641] of location. 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. 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 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. Xi Pp. 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. 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.