McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education
Docket: 34
Court: Supreme Court of the United States; June 5, 1950; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court
The Supreme Court case McLAURIN v. OKLAHOMA STATE REGENTS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION addresses whether a state can treat a student differently due to race after admitting him to a graduate program. The appellant, a Black citizen of Oklahoma with a Master's degree, was initially denied admission to the University of Oklahoma based solely on his race, as mandated by Oklahoma statutes prohibiting integrated education. The appellant sought injunctive relief, arguing that his treatment and the statutes violated his right to equal protection under the law.
A three-judge District Court ruled that the state must provide the same educational opportunities to all students once it offers them to any group, declaring the relevant statutes unconstitutional. However, the court did not grant an injunction, believing the state would comply with constitutional requirements.
Following this ruling, the Oklahoma legislature amended the statutes, allowing Black students to attend predominantly white institutions under segregation conditions. The appellant was admitted under these conditions, which required him to sit apart from other students in classrooms and libraries, as well as in the cafeteria.
The appellant later filed a motion to modify the District Court's judgment, contesting the segregation practices he faced. The District Court ruled that these conditions did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, leading to the present appeal.
The treatment of the appellant in the classroom has changed since the previous court decision. Initially, he was segregated by a rail with a sign stating 'Reserved For Colored,' but this has been removed. He now sits in a designated row for colored students, has a table assigned in the library, and can eat in the cafeteria alongside other students, though he is still required to sit at a separate table. These arrangements are deemed nominal since he shares facilities with students of other races, yet the imposed separations hinder his educational experience by limiting his ability to engage fully with peers.
Despite arguments that removing these restrictions may not improve his situation due to potential peer segregation, the document asserts a constitutional distinction between state-imposed segregation and individual choices. The state’s restrictions deny the appellant equal protection under the law, particularly under the Fourteenth Amendment, as they create an unequal educational environment that affects his future role as a leader in education. Consequently, the court concludes that he must receive the same treatment as students of other races, leading to the reversal of the previous judgment.
Additionally, a provision is noted that allows for segregated programs leading to specific degrees at state institutions, reinforcing the legal framework around educational segregation.
