Ada Lois Sipuel was an African-American woman who applied to the University of Oklahoma Law School in 1946, but was denied admission because of her race. Two years later, the Supreme Court ruled in Sipuel v Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma that the state of Oklahoma was obligated to provide facilities for African American students that were equal to those provided for the white students. In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling, the state of Oklahoma actually created a law school at the historically black college, Langston University, but subsequent litigation determined this program was inferior to the one at OU and Sipuel was admitted to the OU law school in 1949. When Sipuel began classes in law at OU, she was seated in a
…show more content…
Sipuel died in 1995, and the following year, was inducted into the Oklahoma Women’s Hall of Fame. However, before Sipuel’s death, the Brown v Board of Education case was instituted. This case concerning segregation in public schools came to the decision that this was unconstitutional. Sipuel v University of Oklahoma case in 1948 was an important precursor to the Brown v Board of Education case years later.
A leading activist from a young age, Sipuel tested the legal fiction of “separate but equal”, opening higher education to African-American students in the state of Oklahoma. By doing so, a concrete foundation was laid for the Brown v Board of Education decision by the Supreme Court. Sipuel was raised in a household with strong belief of racial equality . Following the denunciation of her brother, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) leaders served as plaintiff to contest the segregationist admissions procedures of the state’s sole white law school at the University of Oklahoma, Sipuel’s family volunteered her to take the charge. Her application was denied by the OU Law School, therefore, the Sipuel family lawyers filed that because …show more content…
. When the Brown v Board decision was made, lives were inevitably changed, too, both black and white. The Brown case is just a super-sized version of Sipuel’s case and without Sipuel, who knows if the Brown decision would have been what it was? Regarding the Brown case, the District Court went into a deliberation of the equality of separate schools for white and black children and stated that the facilities and curricula of both schools were of equal opportunity . However, one could easily tell they could not even be comparable. This is similar to Sipuel’s dilemma. The court ruled that she should be provided with an institution in her state to continue her education, but the makeshift law school created at Langston University was not comparable academically. Sipuel appealed the decision that the two schools were “substantially equal” . The District Court in the Brown case was still stubborn and hard to soften. They did not think that segregating the two races would repudiate the children of the minority group of equal opportunities, even though this obviously would make the black students feel inferior to the white students, thus decreasing their motivation to learn. Sipuel’s case was much more than not feeling motivated to learn, though. It is evident she was a hard worker. The point is, she had the coherent ability to
Sipuel died in 1995, and the following year, was inducted into the Oklahoma Women’s Hall of Fame. However, before Sipuel’s death, the Brown v Board of Education case was instituted. This case concerning segregation in public schools came to the decision that this was unconstitutional. Sipuel v University of Oklahoma case in 1948 was an important precursor to the Brown v Board of Education case years later.
A leading activist from a young age, Sipuel tested the legal fiction of “separate but equal”, opening higher education to African-American students in the state of Oklahoma. By doing so, a concrete foundation was laid for the Brown v Board of Education decision by the Supreme Court. Sipuel was raised in a household with strong belief of racial equality . Following the denunciation of her brother, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) leaders served as plaintiff to contest the segregationist admissions procedures of the state’s sole white law school at the University of Oklahoma, Sipuel’s family volunteered her to take the charge. Her application was denied by the OU Law School, therefore, the Sipuel family lawyers filed that because …show more content…
. When the Brown v Board decision was made, lives were inevitably changed, too, both black and white. The Brown case is just a super-sized version of Sipuel’s case and without Sipuel, who knows if the Brown decision would have been what it was? Regarding the Brown case, the District Court went into a deliberation of the equality of separate schools for white and black children and stated that the facilities and curricula of both schools were of equal opportunity . However, one could easily tell they could not even be comparable. This is similar to Sipuel’s dilemma. The court ruled that she should be provided with an institution in her state to continue her education, but the makeshift law school created at Langston University was not comparable academically. Sipuel appealed the decision that the two schools were “substantially equal” . The District Court in the Brown case was still stubborn and hard to soften. They did not think that segregating the two races would repudiate the children of the minority group of equal opportunities, even though this obviously would make the black students feel inferior to the white students, thus decreasing their motivation to learn. Sipuel’s case was much more than not feeling motivated to learn, though. It is evident she was a hard worker. The point is, she had the coherent ability to