(1950) 455, 456, 457. The primary purpose of the 14th Amendment was to extend rights and protections found in the Constitution to the states. State-imposed restrictions which produce such inequalities cannot be sustained. 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. The following (as per The Chicago Manual of Style, 17th edition) is the preferred citation for articles:Alfred L. Brophy, McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents (1950), The Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture, https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entry=MC034. George McLaurin, Educator born 851, 94 L.Ed. 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.". At the time, an Oklahoma law made it a misdemeanor to operate, teach at, or attend an educational institution that admitted both white and black students. 87 F. Supp. At that time, his application was denied, solely because of his race. Name Meaning Pitts Linda Joan 1 English: variant of Pitt .2 Americanized spelling of German Pitz . 848. 0000001634 00000 n Our editors will review what youve submitted and determine whether to revise the article. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.[1][2]. 0000001774 00000 n We hold that under these circumstances the Fourteenth Amendment precludes differences in treatment by the state based upon race. But at the very least, the state will not be depriving appellant of the opportunity [339 U.S. 637, 642] to secure acceptance by his fellow students on his own merits. 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. P. 339 U. S. 641. State-imposed restrictions which produce such inequalities cannot be sustained. The case was decided on June 5, 1950. The Voting Rights Act Age 17 The Voting Rights Act prohibits racial discrimination in voting. 1161, 3 A.L.R.2d 441. Dist. 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 of location. They write new content and verify and edit content received from contributors. These restrictions were obviously imposed in order to comply, as nearly as could be, with the statutory requirements of Oklahoma. 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. - Biography, Facts, Quotes & Accomplishments, Working Scholars Bringing Tuition-Free College to the Community. That court held that such treatment did not violate the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment and denied the motion. 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. 70 Okla. Stat. The case McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents began when the University of Oklahoma denied George McLaurin into its graduate program because of his race. 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. 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]. 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. Messrs. Amos T. Hall, Tulsa, Okl., Robert L. Carter, Washington, D.C., for appellant. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents - casetext.com 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. U.S. Supreme CourtMcLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950), McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education. HM0O0wz,['+hQ#H pt}~es9p~(/W3&5YfqL4Q7F:6[QcsWP\~)gLBsDhjB`9L[{kNu2[/(DSm:o_zX?aEEn^)}UXR}2 wF%. It further held that to the extent the Oklahoma statutes denied him admission they were unconstitutional and void. US Supreme Court. Our society grows increasingly complex, and our need for trained leaders increases correspondingly. 70 S.Ct. The U.S. Supreme Court heard McLaurin's appeal in April 1950 and in June unanimously reversed the lower court. (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. The Power of Precedent - Separate Is Not Equal - National McLAURIN v. OKLAHOMA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS :: 2020 McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents (1950) | The Encyclopedia The result is that appellant is handicapped in his pursuit of effective graduate instruction.