Bluford, Lucile H.

Displaying 61 - 72 of 169

From Dr. F. A. Middlebush to Chester A. Franklin

Letter from University of Missouri president Frederick A. Middlebush to Kansas City Call editor Chester A. Franklin in response to Franklin's letter of May 21.

From Charles H. Houston to William S. Hogsett

Letter from Charles H. Houston to William S. Hogsett regarding the Bluford vs. Canada case, writing that he has advised Lucile Bluford that she has "an independent cause of action" against S. W. Canada, University of Missouri registrar, due to his refusal to admit Bluford to the university's journalism program "in spite of his clear knowledge that there was no graduate work in journalism at Lincoln University." He advises Bluford to pursue that case and drop her appeal in the prior one.

From Charles H. Houston to S. W. Canada

Letter from attorney Charles H. Houston to University of Missouri registrar S. W. Canada, saying that he is writing in response to his September 2 letter to Lucile Bluford. Houston cites the Lloyd Gaines decision and its assertion that Gaines must be admitted if Lincoln did not provide a law program by the next semester, and notes that Lincoln University has by that point had three weeks longer to establish a journalism program than it had to establish a law program in the Gaines case.

From C. A. Franklin to Dr. F. A. Middlebush

Letter from Kansas City Call editor Chester A. Franklin to University of Missouri president Frederick A. Middlebush, discussing the importance and impetus of the Lucile Bluford case against the university. Franklin writes that the suit is "an effort to make Missouri provide the equal schooling for Negroes ordered by the supreme court in the Gaines decision," and that "the state has evaded its duty" in meeting that standard.

Draft Reply to Lucile Bluford

Partial draft of a response to Lucile Bluford, written by an unknown party, in reply to her inquiries about gaining admission to the University of Missouri's journalism graduate program. At the time, Bluford was the managing editor of the Kansas City Call and seeking admittance to the masters degree program at MU's School of Journalism. After repeated efforts to enter the program, and repeated denials due to her race, she filed a lawsuit against the university that eventually was heard before the Missouri Supreme Court.

Bluford vs. Canada: Summons and Complaint

Summons and complaint in the civil case of Lucile Bluford vs. S. W. Canada, registrar at the University of Missouri. Canada is ordered to answer Bluford's complaint, directed to her lawyer Carl R. Johnson, within 20 days. The complaint asserts that Bluford was deprived of her civil rights under state law by Canada's refusal to admit her to the University of Missouri's graduate program in journalism, as MU offered the state's only such program, and Bluford was qualified for that program and was rejected solely on the basis of her race.

Bluford vs. Canada: Respondent's Additional Abstract and Brief

Brief written by attorneys representing the University of Missouri and it's registrar, S. W. Canada, in Lucile Bluford's appeal in her suit attempting to gain admission to the university's graduate journalism program.

Bluford vs. Canada: Missouri Supreme Court Appeal Opinion

Missouri Supreme Court opinion written by Judge Albert M. Clark in the appeal of State of Missouri, at the Relation of Lucile Bluford vs. S. W. Canada, Registrar of the University of Missouri, Case No. 37449. Bluford's appeal was based on the United States Supreme Court decision in the Lloyd Gaines vs. University of Missouri case, which asserted that Gaines was entitled to admission to MU's law school when proposed alternatives were insufficient and thus refusing him admission constituted a violation of his right to equal protection.

Bluford vs. Canada: Memorandum Opinion

Memorandum opinion in the civil case of Lucile Bluford vs. S. W. Canada, registrar at the University of Missouri. Canada's lawyers entered a motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that the facts don't support the claim. The document asserts that Bluford was refused admittance to the university "upon the ground that she was a negro," and that Canada "was carrying out the rules and regulations of the statutory governing body of the University," with Lincoln University existing for the education of black students.

Bluford vs. Canada, Civil Action No. 42: Verdict

Verdict in Civil Action No. 42: Lucile Bluford v. S.W. Canada. Jury foreman Edwin J. Bedford announces the jury found in favor of the defendant, University of Missouri registrar S. W. Canada and against defendant Lucile Bluford. At the time, Bluford was the managing editor of the Kansas City Call and her effort to gain admittance to the masters degree program at MU's School of Journalism, and repeated denials due to her race, led to a a series of lawsuits that eventually reached the Missouri Supreme Court.

Bluford vs. Canada, Civil Action No. 42: Telegram from Judge John C. Collet to Edna Morris

Telegram from Judge John C. Collet to Edna Morris regarding Civil Action No. 42: Lucile Bluford v. S.W. Canada. Collet writes that the Bluford v. Canada case will be called the following morning, October 22. At the time, Bluford was the managing editor of the Kansas City Call and her effort to gain admittance to the masters degree program at MU's School of Journalism, and repeated denials due to her race, lead to a a series of lawsuits that eventually reached the Missouri Supreme Court.

Bluford vs. Canada, Civil Action No. 42: Telegram from Charles H. Houston to Judge John C. Collet

Telegram from plaintiff's attorney Charles H. Houston to Judge John C. Collet regarding Civil Action No. 42: Lucile Bluford v. S.W. Canada. Houston writes that, while research is completed for the Bluford case, he is physically unable to complete a memorandum at that time. At the time, Bluford was the managing editor of the Kansas City Call and her effort to gain admittance to the masters degree program at MU's School of Journalism, and repeated denials due to her race, lead to a a series of lawsuits that eventually reached the Missouri Supreme Court.