Viewing Guide for Sweatt v. Painter 1950

Viewing Guide for Sweatt v. Painter 1950
Learning Objectives: The student will
1. Answer comprehension questions while watching the video of Sweatt v. Painter
found on the Oyez, Oyez, O Yay! website.
2. Express personal opinions about key facts, the arguments, decision, and impact
of the Sweatt case on American history.
TEKS: US.6A; US.9A; US.21A
Materials Needed: Access to the Oyez, Oyez, O Yay! website found at
www.texasbar.com/civics (Sweatt video and case study); copies of
the viewing guide for each student.
Teaching Strategy:
1. Explain to the students that they are going to view a video on the 1950 U.S.
Supreme Court case of Sweatt v. Painter. Set the case up by explaining this
is a significant case in U.S. history as it illustrates the continuing problem of
achieving equality for all citizens, especially African Americans, in the years
after the Civil War.
2. Pair the students up and distribute a viewing guide to each student. Have
the students preview the guide with a partner and predict what they think the
answers might be. After they have discussed their ideas on the guide,
explain that they will be watching the video and answering the questions
individually.
3. Play the video, stopping at the designated time on the teacher notes for the
students to individually answer the comprehension questions as well as
complete the “Stop and Think” section. If there is time, ask for volunteers to
share their thoughts before going to the next section of the video. Continue
this process until the video has come to an end.
4. Explain that the last portion of the guide contains a quote from an author who
has written about the significance of the Sweatt case and a comprehension
opinion question that they are to answer before turning in the video guide.
Extension: Have the students research the U.S. Supreme Court case of Plessy
v. Ferguson also on the Oyez website. Students should complete a case study
of this case and then compare it to the Sweatt v. Painter case they have just
analyzed.
Sweatt v Painter 1950
The Background of the Case—00.00 to 2:25
1. What did the Texas Constitution of 1876 say about segregation and “separate but equal” with
regards to education?
2. What two groups had achieved some progress in the courts to end segregation in public schools?
3. At this time, what two leaders in the NAACP were determined to dismantle and end segregation?
Stop and Think Activity: Why do you think that the NAACP concentrated on ending segregation in
public education?
Heman Sweatt—2:25 to 6:10
1. Who was Heman Sweatt and what did he do? Who was Theophilus Painter and what role did he play in
the controversy?
2. What did the Texas legislature do in response to Mr. Sweatt’s lawsuit?
3. Why did Mr. Sweatt continue his lawsuit against the University of Texas even after the Texas legislature
and the University of Texas had attempted to solve the issue?
Stop and Think Activity—Would you have been satisfied with the solution to the issue offered by the Texas
legislature and the University of Texas Law School? Why or why not?
Question brought to the Supreme Court—6:10 to 7:39
1. What was the question that the Supreme Court had to answer in this case? (Formula for issue
question—yes/no question; facts of the case; part of the Constitution in question)
2. What were the two arguments used by Sweatt’s attorneys in arguing the case?
Stop and Think Activity—What did the attorney mean when he said they hoped to “cut the roots out of
segregation?”
The Ruling—7:40 to 10:20
1. What was the ruling of the Court and the major reason for this decision?
Stop and Think: Do you agree or disagree with the decision of the Supreme Court? Defend your answer.
The Impact of the Case—10:20 to 12:27
1. What was the impact of the case on Heman Sweatt? On other African Americans who wanted to attend
the University of Texas Law School?
2. How did this case change segregation of public education after the decision?
3. What was the response of the NAACP with regards to the Sweatt decision?
Conclusion
More than 60 years after Sweatt was the first African-American to apply to [the University of Texas School
of Law], his story continues to be emotionally and politically relevant, and his case . . . led directly to the end
of segregation. Gary M. Lavergne, author of Before Brown: Heman Marion Sweatt, Thurgood Marshall
and the Long Road to Justice
1. Paraphrase what this quote means in your own words.
2. Do you agree or disagree with the conclusion drawn by Mr. Lavergne that this case directly led to the
end of segregation? Defend your answer.
Sweatt v Painter 1950
The Background of the Case—00.00 to 2:25
1. What did the Texas Constitution of 1876 say about segregation and “separate but equal” with
regards to education? Article I, Section 7 of the 1876 Texas Constitution provided that separate
schools should be provided for whites and blacks.
2. What two groups had achieved some progress in the courts to end segregation in public schools?
Children of Mexican and Latin origins had achieved some progress in ending segregation. (See
1946 Mendez v Westminster and 1948 Delgado v Bastrop cases on Oyez site).
3. At this time, what two leaders in the NAACP were determined to dismantle and end segregation?
Charles H. Houston and Thurgood Marshall
Stop and Think Activity: Why do you think that the NAACP concentrated on ending segregation in
public education as a way to achieve equality in the United States? Both Marshall and Houston as
leaders in the NAACP were determined to end segregation in public education. They believed that
without equality in educational opportunities it would be difficult for African Americans to ever achieve
equality in American society. They strongly believed that “separate but equal” was impossible to
achieve—separate, yes; equal, no.
Heman Sweatt—2:25 to 6:10
1. Who was Heman Sweatt and what did he do? Who was Theophilus Painter and what role did he play in
the controversy? Heman Sweatt was a mailman interested in going to law school and he wanted to
attend the law school at the University of Texas, which was one of the best in the nation. He sued
Theophilus Painter, the President of the University of Texas because he was denied admission to the UT
Law School only because of his race. When he applied the registrar offered to send Sweatt out of state
to a law school that allowed African Americans as well as helping with his tuition to that law school if
he needed.
2. What did the Texas legislature do in response to Mr. Sweatt’s lawsuit? The Texas Legislature was
concerned about the case and decided to act before it reached the Supreme Court. It appropriated
money to create more schools for African Americans. One of these schools was a law school on 13th
Street in Austin. The Legislature provided money to purchase 10,000 books and renovate the facility.
Three UT law professors agreed to teach classes at the new school. This was their attempt to meet the
“separate but equal” requirement of Plessy v. Ferguson.
3. Why did Mr. Sweatt continue his lawsuit against the University of Texas even after the Texas legislature
and the University of Texas had attempted to solve the issue? Mr. Sweatt argued that this law school
was not and could never be equal to the UT Law School. There was little interaction provided with the
students and professors, no law review, and it lacked the prestige of the UT Law School which had
developed its reputation over a long period of years. He and the NAACP argued it was definitely
“separate” but not “equal.”
Stop and Think Activity—Would you have been satisfied with the solution to the issue offered by the Texas
legislature and the University of Texas Law School? Why or why not?
Question brought to the Supreme Court—6:10 to 7:39
1. What was the question that the Supreme Court had to answer in this case? (Formula for issue
question—yes/no question; facts of the case; part of the Constitution in question)
Does the “equal protection of the laws” clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allow a
state to provide separate law schools for students of different races if those law schools are
“substantially equal”?
2. What were the two arguments used by Sweatt’s attorneys in arguing the case?
Sweatt’s attorneys argued the following:
1. The decision and precedent of “separate but equal” in the Plessy case violated the equal protection
clause of the 14th Amendment.
2. Even if the decision in the Plessy case was correct or constitutional, the law school was separate, but
definitely not equal.
Stop and Think Activity—What did the attorney mean when he said they hoped to “cut the roots out of
segregation”?
The Ruling—7:40 to 10:20
1. What was the ruling of the Court and the major reason for this decision? The Justices were not ready to
completely overturn the Plessy decision at this time, but did rule unanimously that Sweatt and other
eligible African American students could enroll in the UT Law School since UT had failed to provide
access to an equal legal education. Chief Justice Fred Vinson wrote the opinion which stated that even
if the facilities could be made equal, there were intangibles such as the reputation of the UT law school,
the network of alumni, and the attraction of great authorities of the law that could not be duplicated.
Stop and Think: Do you agree or disagree with the decision of the Supreme Court? Defend your answer.
The Impact of the Case—10:20 to 12:27
1. What was the impact of the case on Heman Sweatt? On other African Americans who wanted to attend
the University of Texas Law School? This was the first time that the Supreme Court took the “equal”
requirement seriously. The Court noted that facilities were rarely “equal.” Additionally besides the
facilities not being equal, the Court included the idea that the reputation and prestige of the UT Law
School and the new school could never be equal. This meant that Heman Sweatt and other African
Americans who were eligible could now apply for admission to the UT Law School.
2. How did this case change segregation in public education after the decision? It didn’t end segregation in
public schools at this time. The decision only did so in higher education such as universities, law
schools, etc. However, the precedent was set for the NAACP to continue to argue that “separate but
equal” in all public educational institutions was a violation of the “equal protection” clause of the 14th
Amendment.
3. What was the response of the NAACP with regards to the Sweatt decision? The NAACP pledged to
continue to fight. Four years later, it filed a case in Topeka, Kansas, Brown v. Board of Education
which did end segregation in all levels of public education.
Conclusion
More than 60 years after Sweatt was the first African-American to apply to [the University of Texas School
of Law], his story continues to be emotionally and politically relevant, and his case . . . led directly to the end
of segregation. Gary M. Lavergne, author of Before Brown: Heman Marion Sweatt, Thurgood Marshall
and the Long Road to Justice
1. Paraphrase what this quote means in your own words.
2. Do you agree or disagree with the conclusion drawn by Mr. Lavergne that this case directly led to the
end of segregation? Defend your answer.

Download Report