Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
Sweatt v. Painter (1950)
Transcript of Sweatt v. Painter (1950)
attempted to resovle the issue by offering him acceptance to the universitiy's 'separate but equal' facility. Differences Between the University of Texas Law School and the 'seprate but equal' facility University of Texas Law School The Separate But 'Equal' Facility 16 full-time & 3 part time professors
65,000 volume library
moot court facilities
Order of the Coif affiliation 5 full time proffesors
16,500 volume library
legal aid association Arguments Sweatt's Side Argued that the legal education offered to Sweatt was not equal to the eduction he would recieve if he was admitted to the University of Texas Law School. They also said that becuase of the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, it is required Sweatt should be accempted into the University of Texas Law School. Painter's Side Argued that the separate facility for blacks fulfilled the Separate But Equal Clause to the Fourteenth Amendment. Also, they said that the Separate but Equal Clause does not apply to the area of public education. Court's Vote The vote was nine to zero in Sweatt's favor. Opinion of the Court The court unanimously believed that the separate facility for blacks did not qualify as equal. Did not qualify because of reasons like the number of teachers and books and also didn't qualify because of intanglible factors like the fact that would be isolated from fellow future lawyers. Through this case . . . The supreme court ruled that when considering graduate education, intanglible factors must also be equal in the Separate but Equal Clause.