教育中的种族问题：Sipuel Decision，1948

14行管伟哥

第一小组：陈萧。刘伟。
展示时间：2015.4.25

14行管伟哥

Sipuel Decision，1948展示思路：

概述：①对“公平正义”内涵的理解与讨论
             ——何为公平？
             ——何为弱者？
             ——如何实现平等？
案例：②案例分析（详见3L）
         ③对“教育机会公平”内涵的理解与讨论
             ——机会公平之意义何在？
             ——教育中，我们都给了谁机会？
讨论：④在中国，谁是教育中的弱者？
         ⑤我们该如何帮助这些弱者？

14行管伟哥

    【案例】Ada Lois Sipuel是俄克拉荷马州一名牧师的女儿。他的哥哥之前就打算挑战俄克拉荷马州大学的种族隔离政策，但是他怕被诉讼而最后推延入学选择去了哈沃德大学法学院。Ada Lois Sipuel自愿用推延入学来挑战种族隔离政策。1946年1月，她向俄克拉荷马州大学提交申请，那个时候，俄克拉荷马州大学还是个全白人的法律学校，也是一所公立学校，结果因为种族的原因被拒。
     她向俄克拉荷马州克利夫兰法院提起诉讼，被驳回。俄克拉荷马州的最高法院也支持克利夫兰法院的判决，因此她向最高法院提起诉讼。
     2年后，1948年最高法院受理她的诉讼，最高法院在1月12日做出判决，要求俄克拉荷马州必须给黑人提供与白人相同的权利，之前全白人的州立法学院必须接受合格的黑人，改变了俄克拉荷马州最高法院的判决。

陈萧

案件的判决书
Sipuel v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma
Sipuel v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Okla., 332 U.S. 631 (1948) (per curiam) is a United States Supreme Court case involving racial segregation toward African Americans by the University of Oklahoma's and the application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Facts
Ada Lois Sipuel (February 8, 1924 – October 18, 1995), born in Chickasha, Oklahoma was the daughter of a minister. Her brother planned to challenge segregationist policies of the University of Oklahoma, but went to Howard University Law School (in Washington, D.C.) in order not to delay his career further by protracted litigation.
Ada Sipuel was willing to delay her legal career in order to challenge segregation. On January 14, 1946, she applied at the University of Oklahoma (at the time, an all-white law school), the only taxpayer funded law school in the State of Oklahoma at the time, and was denied because of race ("color").
She then petitioned District Court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma. Her writ of mandamus was refused. The Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld the decision of the lower district court (in 180 P.2d 135), the petitioners then appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Findings of the court
Two years later, in 1948, the United States Supreme Court heard the petition on January 7 and 8th, that stated: “petitioner is entitled to secure legal education afforded by a state institution.” They continued that: “The State must provide it for her in conformity with the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and provide it as soon as it does for applicants of any other group.” Citing the 1938 case: Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada – [305 U.S. 337 (1938); a case in which: "Lloyd Gaines, a negro, was refused admission to the School of Law of the University of Missouri".
The petitioners, acting on behalf of Miss Sipuel, were Thurgood Marshall of New York City, and Amos Hall, of Tulsa (also on the brief Frank D. Reeves). The respondents, representing the defendants, the university and the State of Oklahoma, were Fred Hansen, of Oklahoma City, the First Assistant Attorney General of Oklahoma, and Maurice H. Merrill, of Norman (also on the brief Mac Q. Williamson, Attorney General). This was a landmark case in the early civil rights movement. The case reversed Lee v. State of Mississippi, and was also a precursor for Brown v. Board of Education – 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
The court ruled, on January 12, that the state of Oklahoma must provide instruction for Blacks equal to that of Whites, requiring the admission of qualified black students to previously all-white state law schools, reversing the Supreme Court of Oklahoma decision. The same ruling was handed down two years later in a parallel case Sweatt v. Painter – 339 U.S. 629 (1950) (in which Heman Marion Sweatt was refused admission to the University of Texas School of Law on the grounds that the Texas State Constitution prohibited integrated education).
Impact
According to Supreme Court Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, who sat in the gallery and watched Marshall argue the case before the court on Thursday, January 8, 1948, Marshall was: “respectful, forceful and persuasive – so persuasive that on the following Monday – only four days after the argument – the Court unanimously ruled in Sipuel's favor.” In addition, Ada Sipuel was: “not only an excellent student, but was welcomed by her classmates who did not agree with the exclusionary policy that the State had unsuccessfully tried to defend.”