University of North Carolina Board of Trustees v. Fraiser Motion to Affirm

    IN  THE

(tort uf tip? Inttrfc g’tatrsi
October Term, 19S5

No. 587

T h e  B oard of T rustees of th e  U niversity  of N orth 
Ca r o l in a ; A rch  T. A l le n , Secretary to the Board of 
Trustees of the University of North Carolina; H arris 
P u rk s , Acting President of the University of North 
Carolina; L ee B oy W ells A rmstrong , Director of Ad­
missions of the University of North Carolina; and the 
U niversity  of N orth  Carolina, a body incorporate,

Appellants,
v.

L eR oy B e n ja m in  F rasier, J r ., and R alph  K en n ed y  F ra­
sier, Minors, by their next friends, L eR oy B e n ja m in  
F rasier and wife, Oziebel K ennedy" F rasier ; and J ohn  
L ew is  B randon , a Minor, by his next friends, W illiam  
B ell  and wife, E ldora B ell ,

Appellees.

O n A ppeal  from  th e  U nited- S tates D istrict C ourt 
for t h e  M iddle D istrict of N orth  Carolina

MOTION TO AFFIRM

Conrad O. P earson,
F loyd B . M cK issick ,
J o h n  H. W heeler ,
T hurgood M arshall ,
R obert L . Carter,

Attorneys for Appellees.
W illiam  A . M arsh , J r .,
E . H. Gadsden ,
M . E. J ohnson ,

of Counsel.

Supreme  P r in t in g  Co., I n c ., 114 W orth S treet, N. Y. 13, B E e k m a n  3 - 2320 
«^§g^»49



TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

Statement ..................................................................   1
Argument ......................................................................... 3
Conclusion ....................................................................... 5

Table of Cases Cited

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 .............. 3
Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497 ...................................  3
Dawson v. Mayor, 220 F. 2d 386 (CA 4th 1955), a ff’d,

— U. S. —, 100 L. ed. (Adv. p. 75) .........................  4
Holmes v. City of Atlanta, 124 F. Supp. 290, 223 

F. 2d 93, reversed, — U. S. —, 100 L. ed. (Adv. p.
7 6 ) ..................................................................................  4

Keyes v. Carolina Coach Co. — I. C. C. — ................ 4
McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 TJ. S. 637 4
NAACP v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.

— I. C. C. — ................................................................. 4
Sipuel v. Oklahoma, 332 U. S. 631 ...........................  4
Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U. S. 629 ................................. 4



1ST T H E

(Orwrt nt tl}t finite States
October Term, 1955 

No. 587

---------------------- o------------------ -—

T he  B oard oe T rustees op th e  U niversity  op N orth 
Ca ro lin a ; A rch  T . A l le n , Secretary to the Board of 
Trustees of the University of North Carolina; H arris 
P u r r s , Acting President of the University of North 
Carolina; L ee R oy W ells A rmstrong , Director of Ad­
missions of the University of North Carolina; and the 
U niversity  op N orth  Carolina, a body incorporate,

Appellants,
v.

L eR oy B e n ja m in  F rasier, Jr., and R alph  K ennedy  F ra­
sier, Minors, by their next friends, L eR oy B e n ja m in  
F rasier and wife, O zierel K ennedy  F rasier ; and John  
L ew is  B randon , a Minor, by his next friends, W illiam  
B ell  and wife, E ldora B ell ,

Appellees.

O n A ppeal prom  th e  U nited S tates D istrict C ourt 
por th e  M iddle D istrict op N orth  Carolina

—------------------- o-----------------------

MOTION TO AFFIRM

Pursuant to Rule 16 of the Revised Rules of the Su­
preme Court of the United States, appellees move that the 
judgment and decree of the court below be affirmed on the 
ground that the two (2) questions raised in this appeal are 
without substance in law or fact and that the judgment of 
the court below is clearly correct and in accord with the 
decisions of this Court.



2

Statement

LeRoy B. Frasier, Jr., Ralph K. Frasier, and John L. 
Brandon, Negro youths of Durham, North Carolina, are 
graduates of a high school in Durham, North Carolina, 
maintained by the state for the education of its youth. 
The youths applied to the officers of the University of 
North Carolina in April, 1955 for admission to the Under­
graduate Department of the University of North Carolina. 
The University officials rejected their apxDlications, advis­
ing them that, under the rules governing the University, 
Negroes were not accepted in the Undergraduate Depart­
ment of the University.

The refusal of the governing body of the University of 
North Carolina to accept the appellees was based upon two 
orders of the Board of Trustees of the University of 
North Carolina as herein set forth:
Order of April 4, 1951:

“ In all cases of applications for admission by mem­
bers of racial groups, other than the white race, to 
the professional or graduate schools when such 
schools are not provided by and in the State of North 
Carolina for such racial groups, the applications shall 
be processed without regard to color or race, as 
required by authoritative judicial interpretation of 
the Constitution of the United States, which is the 
Supreme law of our State as well as of the Nation, 
and the applicant accepted or rejected in accordance 
with the approved rules and standards of admission 
for the particular school.”

Order of May 23,1955:

“ The State of North Carolina having spent millions 
of dollars in furnishing adequate and equal educa­



3

tional facilities in the undergraduate departments 
of its institutions of higher learning for all races, it 
is hereby declared to he the policy of the Board of 
Trustees of the consolidated University of North 
Carolina that applications of Negroes to the under­
graduate schools of the three branches of the con­
solidated University be not accepted.”

Thereupon, the appellees brought suit in the United 
States District Court for the Middle District of North 
Carolina, asserting that the refusal to accept them, or to 
receive their applications, was a violation of their rights 
and privileges, as secured by the Constitution of the United 
States. They sought a judgment declaratory of their rights 
and a mandatory injunction compelling the University to 
accept their applications. The judgment was entered on 
September 21, 1955.

Argument

1. There can be little doubt but that this case was cor­
rectly decided by the court below, and that this appeal raises 
no issues of substance. This Court has settled the question 
of the right of a State to segregate persons solely because of 
race in the field of public education. Brown v. Board of 
Education, 347 U. S. 483 and Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 
497. Since that decision, this Court has made it evident 
that the constitutional principle laid down in the Brown 
case was not a principle designed to meet a special situa­
tion only, but was an announcement of a constitutional doc­
trine which was to guide American courts in decisions con­
cerning the effect of the Fourteenth Amendment with re­
spect to questions of racial discrimination and segregation



4

in general. See Dawson v. Mayor, 220 F. 2d 386 (CA 4th 
1955), a ff’d, — U. S. —, 100 L. ed. (Adv. p. 75); Holmes v. 
City of Atlanta, 125 F. Snpp. 290, 223 F. 2d 98, reversed, 
— U. S. —, 100 L. ed. (Adv. p. 76). See also National Asso­
ciation for the Advancement of Colored People v. St. Louis- 
San Francisco Ry. Co., — I. C. C. —, decided November 7, 
1955 and Keyes v. Carolina Coach Co., — I. C. C. —, decided 
November 7, 1955.

2. Appellants seek to becloud the issues here involved, 
by questioning the sweep of the decision below. That argu­
ment, we submit, is specious and is completely answered in 
the opinion review of which is sought here. All that was 
decided is that the University of North Carolina may not 
hereafter use race as a criterion in determining the eli­
gibility of persons to attend the University of North Caro­
lina, and that it must admit Negroes to that institution 
by determining their qualifications for admission on the 
same basis as that of other persons. This does not mean 
that the University must admit Negroes who do not pos­
sess the qualifications which it requires of other students. 
All that it does mean is that the University must not 
refuse to admit a qualified person merely because he is 
a Negro. This has, in fact, been the reach and import of all 
of the decisions of this Court which have struck down racial 
discrimination and segregation as being violative of the 
Fourteenth Amendment. See Sipuel v. Oklahoma, 332 U. S. 
631; Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U. S. 629; McLaurin v. Okla­
homa State Regents, 339 U. S. 637.



5

CONCLUSION

Wherefore, for the reasons hereinabove indicated, 
it is respectfully submitted, the judgment of the Court 
of Appeals is correct and this motion to affirm should 
be granted.

C onrad- 0 .  P earson,
F loyd B. M cK issick ,
J oh n  H . W heeler ,
T htjrgood M arshall ,
R obert L. Carter,

Attorneys for Appellees.

W illiam  A. M arsh , Jr., 
E. H. G adsden,
M. E. J ohnson ,

of Counsel.



V