Tucker v. Blease
97 S.C. 303, 1914 S.C. LEXIS 189, 81 S.E. 668 (1914)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
School trustees have the authority to dismiss students from a white public school based on perceived mixed-race ancestry, even if legally considered white, when prevailing community sentiment deems it necessary for the best interest of the school, provided separate and equal educational accommodations are afforded.
Facts:
- On or about January 24, 1913, John D. Coleman, Lawrence E. Dew, and J. E. Williams, trustees of Dalcho public school, dismissed Herbert Kirby, Eugene Kirby, and Dudley Kirby from the white public school of that district.
- The Kirby children had been attending the Dalcho school for two sessions prior to their dismissal.
- Objections had been made at various times to the Kirby children's presence in the school, but the trustees initially refrained from taking action as there were no other children of that perceived class attending.
- Shortly before their dismissal, other children of the same perceived class attempted to enter the said school, leading to renewed complaints from its patrons.
- The trustees believed that unless all children of the Kirby children's class were dismissed from the school, it would be materially injured.
- The trustees were informed and believed that the Kirby children were not of pure Caucasian blood, a fact generally known to the citizens of the community.
- The trustees further believed that the 'environment and antecedents' of the Kirby children and public knowledge thereof placed them in a separate class from the white people of the community.
- The trustees stated they were ready and willing to provide a separate school for all children of this perceived class in that district, having done so in the past.
Procedural Posture:
- On or about January 24, 1913, the trustees of Dalcho public school dismissed Herbert Kirby, Eugene Kirby, and Dudley Kirby from the white public school.
- George W. Tucker, as guardian of the children, petitioned the Dillon County Board of Education for a rule to show cause why the children should not be reinstated.
- The Dillon County Board of Education held a hearing on the matter, commencing February 14, 1913, and concluding February 24, 1913.
- The Dillon County Board of Education sustained the action of the trustees, but ordered the trustees to provide proper school facilities for the wards of petitioner and all other similarly situated children.
- The petitioner appealed the decision of the Dillon County Board of Education to the State Board of Education.
- The State Board of Education sustained the action of the Dillon County Board of Education and dismissed the appeal.
- An application for a writ of certiorari was made to the Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a school board have the authority to dismiss students from a white public school based on their perceived mixed-race ancestry, even if they have less than one-eighth negro blood and are otherwise legally entitled to white status, when public sentiment is against their attendance and separate but equal accommodations can be provided?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Gary
Yes, a school board has the authority to dismiss students from a white public school based on their perceived mixed-race ancestry, even if they have less than one-eighth negro blood and are otherwise legally entitled to white status, when public sentiment makes it necessary for the best interest of the school, provided equal accommodations are afforded. The Court acknowledged that state law permitted marriage between a white person and one with less than one-eighth negro blood, implying their children could exercise all legal rights of a white person, except those arising from a proper classification when equal accommodations exist. The Court found that the law recognizes a 'social element, arising from racial instinct,' justifying classification between those with and without negro blood, made mandatory by various state statutes and constitutional provisions (e.g., separate schools, anti-miscegenation laws). Citing State v. Cantey, the Court emphasized that an individual's status (white or colored) is not determined solely by the degree of mixed blood, but also by 'reputation, by his reception into society, and his having commonly exercised the privileges of a white man,' thus giving significant weight to public opinion. The Court also relied on Plessy v. Ferguson, stating that legislation is 'powerless to eradicate racial instincts or to abolish distinctions based upon physical differences' and that the Fourteenth Amendment does not enforce 'social, as distinguished from political, equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either.' Given that a 'decided majority of the patrons' would refuse to send their children to the Dalcho school if the Kirby children remained, the Court applied the maxim 'The greatest good to the largest number' to justify segregation, stating it was 'far better that the children in question should be segregated.' The Court concluded that the trustees' action was neither capricious nor arbitrary, as they were willing to provide equal accommodations, and was justified by state law (Code of Laws 1912, Section 1761, Subdivision 3) which grants trustees authority to dismiss pupils when 'the best interest of the schools make it necessary.'
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the 'separate but equal' doctrine at the state level, extending its application to a highly subjective classification of individuals based on perceived mixed-race ancestry rather than strict legal definitions. It illustrates the considerable power granted to local school authorities to enforce racial segregation under the guise of maintaining school harmony and responding to dominant public sentiment. The Court's reliance on social perception and 'racial instinct' over explicit blood quantum definitions created a mechanism through which individuals with even minimal Black ancestry could be denied access to white institutions, solidifying racial divisions and legitimizing prejudice in public education. This decision exemplifies the legal framework that sustained Jim Crow-era segregation, making clear that 'equal protection' did not extend to social equality or integration.
