In Texas Case Study Fairclough

During the Fairclough’s article discussion, one of the key research materials that have rarely received scholarly attention pertains to the legal documents held in the NAACP archive. Fairclough asserted that “the NAACP legal offensive against separate and inferior education in 1935 and culminated in the 1954 Brown decision.” When analyzing the Sweatt v. Painter case study, it became evident that predominately all of the author’s under analysis acquired their information from NAACP historical records. Records utilized by scholars for research contained personal conversation, documents, letters, newspaper articles, and trial transcripts. In most articles studied, they restate the same information found in Michael L. Gillette’s
They lacked willing volunteers, and those that applied did not possess the academic qualifications. In Chapter Two of Lavergne’s book, he describes the key NAACP figures who were prominent in the selection process: William J. Durham would become the resident counsel in Texas, A. Maceo Smith the state’s NAACP leader and executive secretary, Carter W. Wesley the Houston Informer publisher, Kenneth Lampkin an Austin attorney, Lulu White the NAACP's state director of branches, and Thurgood Marshall. Marshall was the lead NAACP Council, who presided over the Murray case and later become the lead Council for Sweatt case arguing before the Supreme Court. Gillette’s article describes the difficulties in selecting a qualified plaintiff. Lulu White would eventually find the candidate. During an event at Wesley Chapel, “Lulu White spoke to a group of Houston blacks, appealing for a volunteer to file a lawsuit against the university. When no one else showed a willingness to do so, Sweatt stood up and announced that he would.” Thus began Heman Marion Sweatt involvement with the NAACP, to end segregation in Texas by applying admittance to the UT Law