McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents

339 U.S. 637

Case Year: 1950

Case Ruling: 9-0, Reversed

Opinion Justice: Vinson

FACTS

G. W. McLaurin, having completed a master's degree, applied for admission to the University of Oklahoma in order to pursue a doctorate in education. On February 2, 1948, the university, complying with state law, denied the application for admission solely because McLaurin was black. He filed suit, claiming that the denial deprived him of equal protection of the law. A federal district court ruled in his favor. In response, the Oklahoma legislature amended its law to permit the admission of blacks to institutions of higher learning if relevant course offerings were not available at schools reserved for black students. However, the new law also provided that the colleges and universities accepting black students operate on a segregated basis.

Pursuant to this change in state law, McLaurin was admitted to the university. Initially, because of the segregation provision, he was required to sit at a designated desk in an anteroom adjoining his classrooms, sit at a special desk on the mezzanine floor when using the library, and sit at a specially designated table in the school cafeteria. Later, he was allowed to sit inside his classrooms, but still in at a special desk separated from his classmates. To remove these restrictions, he again went to the federal district court. When the court denied his petition in 1949, he appealed to the Supreme Court.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.

... It is said that the separations imposed by the State in this case are in form merely nominal. 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. 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.

These restrictions were obviously imposed in order to comply, as nearly as could be, with the statutory requirements of Oklahoma. But they signify that the State, in administering the facilities it affords for professional and graduate study, sets McLaurin apart from the other students. The result is that appellant is handicapped in his pursuit of effective graduate instruction. 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.

Our society grows increasingly complex, and our need for trained leaders increases correspondingly. 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. Those who will come under his guidance and influence must be directly affected by the education he receives. Their own education and development will necessarily suffer to the extent that his training is unequal to that of his classmates. State-imposed restrictions which produce such inequalities cannot be sustained.

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. This we think irrelevant. There is a vast difference--a Constitutional difference--between 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 removal of the state restrictions will not necessarily abate individual and group predilections, prejudices and choices. But at the very least, the state will not be depriving appellant of the opportunity to secure acceptance by his fellow students on his own merits.

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. See Sweatt v. Painter. We hold that under these circumstances the Fourteenth Amendment precludes differences in treatment by the state based upon race. 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. The judgment is

Reversed.