Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
On December 5, 1910, the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that a child could not attend school because she was 1/16th Black.
Equal Justice Initiative
@eji.org
On this day in 1910, the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled an eight-year-old girl was prohibited from attending her local public school because she was one-sixteenth Black.
Dec. 5, 1910 | D.C. Court Rules Child Cannot Attend School Because She Is 1/16th Black
Learn more about our history of racial injustice.
calendar.eji.org
Dec 5, 2025, 9:01 AM
@eji.org
On this day in 1910, the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled an eight-year-old girl was prohibited from attending her local public school because she was one-sixteenth Black.
Dec. 5, 1910 | D.C. Court Rules Child Cannot Attend School Because She Is 1/16th Black
Learn more about our history of racial injustice.
calendar.eji.org
Dec 5, 2025, 9:01 AM
On this day in 1910, the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled an eight-year-old girl was prohibited from attending her local public school because she was one-sixteenth Black.
— Equal Justice Initiative (@eji.org) 2025-12-05T14:01:02.429Z
On this day Dec 05, 1910
D.C. Court Rules Child Cannot Attend School Because She Is 1/16th Black
{picture}
Washington Times [the old one]
On December 5, 1910, Chief Justice Seth Shepard of the District Court of Appeals in Washington ruled that Isabel Wall, an eight-year-old girl, was prohibited from attending the local white public school because she was one-sixteenth Black. The court held that any child with an “admixture of colored blood” would be classified as such; thus, Isabel would be made to attend a separate school for Black children.
The decision in Oyster v. Wall came just over a decade after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which held that the U.S. Constitution permitted the racial segregation of public facilities. Isabel’s parents filed a lawsuit against the D.C. School Board objecting to the law providing for segregated schooling, but also arguing that, even if segregation was appropriate, their child was not Black.
Growing up, Isabel had been “treated and recognized by her neighbors and friends” as white, according to court filings. The School Board, however, refused to admit her into Brookland White School on account of her “blood,” which they believed made her ineligible to attend school with white students.
Justice Shepard sided with the School Board and ruled that, if “the child is of negro blood of one eighth to one sixteenth; that her racial status is that of the negro.” His decision asserted that “no matter what the complexion,” any person who has “an appreciable admixture of negro blood” would be considered “colored.” Justice Shepard ruled that physical characteristics of an individual were irrelevant as “the sense of sight is but one avenue for the conveyance of information upon the subject of racial identity to the mind of the investigator.” Justice Shepard’s decision thus relied on bigoted views of racial groups and suggested that even where Black ancestry was not easily detectable in someone’s physical appearance, Blackness manifested itself in racial “traits.”
{snip}
D.C. Court Rules Child Cannot Attend School Because She Is 1/16th Black
{picture}
Washington Times [the old one]
On December 5, 1910, Chief Justice Seth Shepard of the District Court of Appeals in Washington ruled that Isabel Wall, an eight-year-old girl, was prohibited from attending the local white public school because she was one-sixteenth Black. The court held that any child with an “admixture of colored blood” would be classified as such; thus, Isabel would be made to attend a separate school for Black children.
The decision in Oyster v. Wall came just over a decade after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which held that the U.S. Constitution permitted the racial segregation of public facilities. Isabel’s parents filed a lawsuit against the D.C. School Board objecting to the law providing for segregated schooling, but also arguing that, even if segregation was appropriate, their child was not Black.
Growing up, Isabel had been “treated and recognized by her neighbors and friends” as white, according to court filings. The School Board, however, refused to admit her into Brookland White School on account of her “blood,” which they believed made her ineligible to attend school with white students.
Justice Shepard sided with the School Board and ruled that, if “the child is of negro blood of one eighth to one sixteenth; that her racial status is that of the negro.” His decision asserted that “no matter what the complexion,” any person who has “an appreciable admixture of negro blood” would be considered “colored.” Justice Shepard ruled that physical characteristics of an individual were irrelevant as “the sense of sight is but one avenue for the conveyance of information upon the subject of racial identity to the mind of the investigator.” Justice Shepard’s decision thus relied on bigoted views of racial groups and suggested that even where Black ancestry was not easily detectable in someone’s physical appearance, Blackness manifested itself in racial “traits.”
{snip}
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
