McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Ed.

Decision Date22 November 1949
Docket NumberCiv. No. 4039.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma
PartiesMcLAURIN v. OKLAHOMA STATE REGENTS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION et al.

Amos T. Hall, Tulsa, Oklahoma, Thurgood Marshall, New York City, counsel for plaintiff.

Mac Q. Williamson, Attorney General, State of Oklahoma, counsel for defendant.

Before VAUGHT, Chief Judge, MURRAH, Circuit Judge and BROADDUS, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

At a former hearing of this cause, 87 F.Supp. 526, we held the segregation laws of the State of Oklahoma, 70 O.S. 1941 §§ 455, 456 and 457, unconstitutional and inoperative insofar as they deprived the plaintiff of his constitutional right to pursue the course of study he sought at the University of Oklahoma. We were careful, however, to confine our decree to the particular facts before us, while recognizing the power of the State to pursue its own social policies regarding segregation in conformity with the equal protection of the laws. We expressly refrained from granting injunctive relief, on the assumption that the State statutory impediments to equal educational facilities having been declared inoperative, the State would provide such facilities in obedience to the constitutional mandate.

Now this cause comes on for further consideration on complaint of the plaintiff, to the effect that although he has been admitted to the University of Oklahoma, and to the course of study he sought, the segregated conditions under which he was admitted, and is required to pursue his course of study, continue to deprive him of equal educational facilities in conformity with the Fourteenth Amendment.

Findings of Fact

I. The undisputed evidence is that subsequent to our decree in this case, plaintiff was admitted to the University of Oklahoma, and to the same classes as those pursuing the same courses. He is required, however, to sit at a designated desk in or near a wide opening into the classroom. From this position, he is as near to the instructor as the majority of the other students in the classroom, and he can see and hear the instructor and the other students in the main classroom as well as any other student. His objection to these facilities is that to be thus segregated from the other students so interferes with his powers of concentration as to make study difficult, if not impossible, thereby depriving him of the equal educational facilities. He says in effect that only if he is permitted to choose his seat as any other student, can he have equal educational facilities.

II. He is accorded access to and use of the school library as other students, except if he remains in the library to study, he is required to take his books to a designated desk on the mezzanine floor. All other students who use the library may choose any available seat in the reading room in the library, but a majority find it necessary to study elsewhere because of a lack of seating capacity in the library. The plaintiff says that this secluded and segregated arrangement tends to set him apart from other students and hence to deprive him of equal facilities.

III. He is admitted to the school cafeteria, where he is served the same food as other students, but at a different time and at a designated table. He does not object to the food, the dining facilities, or the hour served, but to the segregated conditions under which he is served.

In the language of his counsel, he complains that "his required isolation from all other students, solely because of the accident of birth * * * creates a mental discomfiture, which makes concentration and study difficult, if not impossible * * *"; that the enforcement of these regulations places upon him a "badge of inferiority which affects his relationship, both to his fellow students, and to his professors."

Conclusions of Law

I. It is said that since the segregation laws have been declared inoperative, the University is without authority to require the plaintiff to attend classes under the segregated conditions. But the authority of the University to impose segregation is of concern to this court only if the exercise of that authority amounts to a deprivation of a federal right. See Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 65 S.Ct. 1031, 89 L.Ed. 1495, 162 A.L.R. 1330.

The Constitution from which this court derives its jurisdiction does not authorize us to obliterate social or racial distinctions which the State has traditionally recognized as a basis for classification for purposes of education and other public ministrations. The Fourteenth Amendment does not abolish distinctions based upon race or color, nor was it intended to enforce social equality between classes and races. Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 16 S.Ct. 1138, 41 L.Ed. 256; Cumming v. Richmond County Board of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • State ex rel. Hawkins v. Board of Control of Fla.
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • August 1, 1950
    ...783, complying with mandate 344 Mo. 1238, 131 S.W.2d 217; McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Ed., 70 S.Ct. 851 reversing 87 F.Supp. 528; Fisher v. Hurst, 333 U.S. 147, 68 S.Ct. 389, 92 L.Ed. 604, denying motion for conforming to mandate of Sipuel v. Board of Regents, 332 U.S. 631......
  • Laurin v. Oklahoma State Regents For Higher Education
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 5, 1950
    ...the District Court. That court held that such treatment did not violate the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment and denied the motion. 87 F.Supp. 528. This appeal In the interval between the decision of the court below and the hearing in this Court, the treatment afforded appellant was a......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT