Separate black law school unequal.

Separate black law school unequal.

• A. Mendez v Westminster
• B. Sweatt v Painter
• C. Brown v Board of Education
• D. White v Regester

Answer: (B)

The main idea is that separating students by race must not create unequal opportunities or resources. In Sweatt v. Painter, the Supreme Court examined Texas’s plan to create a separate law school for Black students as a remedy to segregation. The Court ruled that this separate Black law school was not equal to the White University of Texas Law School in terms of resources, facilities, faculty, admissions standards, and overall quality. Because the separate institution could not provide the same educational opportunities, the separation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The decision declared that “separate facilities are inherently unequal” in the context of higher education, and it required the state to admit Sweatt to the White law school or to create an equally capable alternative. This ruling weakened the notion of “separate but equal” and helped pave the way for desegregation, influencing later cases like Brown v. Board of Education. Other listed cases involve different civil rights issues—desegregation in California schools for Mexican-American students, and voting-rights/districting questions—while the Sweatt case specifically targets unequal treatment in higher education and the guarantees of equal protection.

The main idea is that separating students by race must not create unequal opportunities or resources. In Sweatt v. Painter, the Supreme Court examined Texas’s plan to create a separate law school for Black students as a remedy to segregation. The Court ruled that this separate Black law school was not equal to the White University of Texas Law School in terms of resources, facilities, faculty, admissions standards, and overall quality. Because the separate institution could not provide the same educational opportunities, the separation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The decision declared that “separate facilities are inherently unequal” in the context of higher education, and it required the state to admit Sweatt to the White law school or to create an equally capable alternative. This ruling weakened the notion of “separate but equal” and helped pave the way for desegregation, influencing later cases like Brown v. Board of Education.

Other listed cases involve different civil rights issues—desegregation in California schools for Mexican-American students, and voting-rights/districting questions—while the Sweatt case specifically targets unequal treatment in higher education and the guarantees of equal protection.