Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2066081
 


 



Breaking the Back of Segregation: Why Sweatt Matters


Paul Finkelman


Albany Law School - Government Law Center

2010

36 Thurgood Marshall Law Review 7-37 (2010) (published in 2012)

Abstract:     
In this article the author argues that Sweatt v. Painter (1950) deserves greater prominence in legal history and the history of integration. Sweatt is the first case in which the Supreme Court articulated that under some circumstances "separate but equal" could never pass constitutional muster because the institution created for blacks could never be equal to the institution for whites. Here the Court held that no matter what the State of Texas create for blacks, it could never create an law school that was "equal" to the law school at the University of Texas at Austin. Significantly, the unanimous Court that decided this case include a graduate of the University of Texas Law School, Justice Tom Clark. Thus, this article argues that Sweatt set the stage for Brown v. Board of Education by sending a clear message to the South that in important ways segregation could never create equal institutions.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 32

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: May 28, 2012  

Suggested Citation

Finkelman, Paul, Breaking the Back of Segregation: Why Sweatt Matters (2010). 36 Thurgood Marshall Law Review 7-37 (2010) (published in 2012). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2066081

Contact Information

Paul Finkelman (Contact Author)
Albany Law School - Government Law Center ( email )
80 New Scotland Avenue
Albany, NY 12208
United States

Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 355
Downloads: 44

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.344 seconds