AUSTIN. TEXAS 

PRICE DANIEL 

A--o-- 

July 31, 1948 

The Board of Directors 

The Texas State University for Negroes 

2007 Petroleum Building 

Houston 2, Texas 

Attention: Fir. John H. Robertson, 

Executive Assistant 

Opinion No. V-645 

Re: ,Whether a white applicant may be admitted to 

The Texas State University for~Ne,groes. 

Gentlemen: 

You'write that Mr. Jack Coffman, a white citizen of Houston, who.representsthat he isa social 

science major from Penn College, Oscaloosa Iowa, desires to be admitted to The Texas State University for 

Negroes for the purpose of taking courses in sociB1~ 

science. You request an opinion as to whether he may 

legally be admitted. 

Section 7 of Article VII and related Articles of the Texas Constitution provide that separate 

schools shall be provided for the white and colored stu- 

;;;ths and that impartial provision shall-be made for 

. 

The.legislative act creating The~Texas 'State 

University for Negroes1 provides that: 

"It is the purpose of~thPs Act to dstablish an entire1 

+. 

separate and equivalent 

university o the first class for Negroes 

" . . . 

f 

Section 1, Senate Bill 140, Acts,SOth Leg., Ch. 29, PO 

36, carried as Art. 2643b, V.A.C.S. 
I . 

The Texas State University for Negroes, Page 2 (V-645) 

With regard to which persons would be eligible 

for enrollment, the Act further provides in Section 12: 

"The term lqualified applicant' as used 

in this Act shall mean any colored person who 

meets the educational requirements . . . . 

The term 'colored person' (means) . . . a negro or person of African descent." 

The Act is plain and unambiguous. It shows 

without question that the Legislature intended to create, 

and did create, an entirely separate university for NeUnder that Act only Negroes may be admitted tom 

!f;Ze&xas State UniverAity for Negroes. 

The sole remaining question is~the constitutionality of the provisions of the Texas Constitution 

and the legislative Act creating the Negro University in 

the 11 ht 

tion o f 

of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constituthe United States, which provides that: 

"No state shall make or enforce any 

law which shall . . . deny to any person 

within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." 

In February 1948, the Austin Court of Civil 

Appeals, held in the case of Sweatt 1. Painter that~ the 

State could constitutionally provide separate facilities 

for the educations of Negroes and white students, @long 

as the facilities offered both groups were substantially 

equal.2 That opinion followed a long line of cases by 

the Supreme Court of the United States to the same effect. 

Thus in P ess v. Fer son 163 U.S. 537, the' 

Supreme Court of t&tzd.%%%%id: 

"The object of the (14th) Amendment 

was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute 

,, 

equality of the two races before the law,' 

but in the nature of things it could not 

have been intended to abolish distinctions 

based upon color, or to enforce social, as 

2 

210 S.W.(2d) 442. The case is now pending'on a plication for writ of error in the Supreme Court of i exas. 
The Texas State University for Negroes, Page 3 (v-645) 

distinguished from political equality, or 

a commingling of the two races,upon terms 

unsatisfactory to either. ,Laws permitting, and even requiring, their separation in places where they are liable to 

be brought into contact do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race 

to the other, and have been generally, if 

not universally, recognized as within the 

compete'ncy of the state legislatures in 

the exercise of their police power. m 

most common instance of this is connected 

with the establishment of senarate schools 

for white and colored children, which has 

been held to be a valid exercise of the 

le g islative Dower even bv courts of States 

where the political rights of the colored 

race have been lonrrest and most earnestly 

enforced. . . .* 

Similarly in Cummings 1. Board of Education, 

175 U.S. 262, that Court stated: 

"We may add that while aliadmit 

that the benefits and burdens,of public 

taxation must be shared by citizens without discrimination against any class on 

account of their race, the education of 

the ueoule in schools maintained bv stat 

fiea 

snective states, and any interference on 

the part of Federal authority with the 

management of such schools cannot be justified except in the case of a clear and 

unmistakable disregard of rights secured 

by the supreme law of the land. . . .e 

And the opinion of the U. S. Supreme Court in 

Gong Lum 1. w, 275 U.S. 7$, reads;' 

"The' question here is whether a Chinese citizen of the United States is denied equal protection of the laws when he 

is classed among the colored races and 

furnished facilities for e'ducation equal 

to that offered to all, whether white, 

brown, yellow or black. Were this a new 

question, it would call for very full argument and consideration, but we think 
The Texas State University for Negroes, Page 4 (V-645) 

that it is the same question which has 

been many times decided to be within the 

constitutional power of the state legislature to settle without intervention of 

the federal courts under the'Federa1 Constitution. . . . 

II . . . The decision is within the 

discretion of the State in regulating its 

public schools and does not conflict with 

the Fourteenth Amendment. The judgment 

of the Supreme Court of Mississippi is affirmed." 

In the recent case of Missouri (Gaines) v. 

#WY (1938) 305 U.S. 337, the Supreme Court of se 

nited States again recognized the state's right to provide separate facilities for Negro and white students. 

Its decision reiterates: 

"The State has sought to fulfill 

.that obligation by furnishing equal facilities in separate schools, a method 

the validity of which has been sustained 

by our decisions. . . .n 

The Gaines case was cAted with approval in 1948 

in Sinue& y. The 

There are no case 

w 6i3 S.Ct. 299. 

. &eke Court to the 

contrary. 

Under these decisions, it is unquestionably now 

the law that the states may constitutionally provide aeparate facilities for the education of Negro and white 

students so long as the facilities offered both groups 

are substantially equal. 

The people of Texas in their Constitution, and 

the Legislature in its enactments, have adopted the policy that white and Negro students should be educated 

separately. The law operates to prohibit a white person's entrance to the Negro University as well as prohibiting the entrance of a Negro to the white University. 

The law is and must be applicable equally to both white 

and Negro citieens. 

The University of Texas offers a wide variety 

of social science courses. The physical facilities and 

scholastic opportunities offered to white students at 
The Texas State University for Negroes, Page 5 (V-645) 

that institution, and other State supported colleges for 

white students, are substantially equal to those offered 

Negro students at The Texas State University for Negroes. 

You are therefore advised that Mr. Coffman may not legally be admitted to The Texas State University for Negroes. 

Since the Texas Constitution and laws 

provide that white and Negro students shall 

be educated separately and since substantially equal courses oi study and physical 

facilities are offered for white students 

at The University of Texas and other State 

colleges, a white student may not legally 

be admitted to The Texas State University 

for Negroes. Constitution of Texas, Article VII Section 7; Sweatt 1. Painter, 210 

S.W.(2d! 442. 

Yours very truly, 

. u 

Attorney General of Texas 

ve Assistant