The Case of Dixon v. Alabama: From Civil Rights to Students’ Rights and Back Again

Abstract

Background/Context Legal scholars have cited the Fifth Circuit's ruling in Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education (1961) as the beginning of a revolution for students’ rights that ended the in loco parentis relationship between colleges and their students. But little has been written about the students’ activism that led to this seminal case. Research Question Students’ rights, in general, benefited from the Dixon precedent. But how did the student activists who brought the case personally benefit? None were able to tell their stories in court in a way that challenged separate but equal laws. None of them took advantage of the due process that the Fifth Circuit ruled that Alabama State College must provide. None re-enrolled at the college after the case was over. And segregation was still alive and well in Alabama after Dixon was decided. So what did they win? Research Design This study presents a historical analysis of the student activism that led to the Dixon case, the case itself, and its interplay with future civil rights activism. Conclusions Despite the divergence of interests between the student activists and the lawyers, both the sit-in and the litigation empowered students all over the country to engage in the civil rights struggle.

Expulsion Litigation and the Limits of in Loco Parentis, 1860-1960

“…The opinion explicitly endorsed the expansive definition of student rights articulated by Hill (1887), affirmed by Gleason (1908), and sustained in the dicta of cases endorsing some sort of due process for expelled students throughout the first half of the 20th century. As indicated by Philip Lee (2014) in the third article in this special section, the racial politics underlying the case help to explain why the college failed to provide the modicum of due process that had been recommended in many earlier rulings. To a certain extent, Dixon passed judgment on a unilateral approach to discipline that was outside the mainstream of both American higher education and American jurisprudence.…”

Institutionalizing in Loco Parentis after Gott v. Berea College (1913)

“…What is more, the right-privilege distinction carefully regulated the intellectual and social relations between and among students, faculty, and administrators, thereby reinforcing the parent-child relationship that was the essence of in loco parentis. As Philip Lee (2014) explains in the final article of this collection, the right-privilege distinction collapsed in the 1960s under pressure from rights-conscious African American students in search of full democratic citizenship, on and off campus. All that was decades away, and until then, students were legal minors, possessed few rights, and could be suspended or expelled for practically any reason.…”

Editors’ note

“…Actions taken by student activists during the CRM were not limited to marches and sit‐ins in the community—but also to advocate for a more inclusive curriculum, increases in Black faculty and staff, and more welcoming and affirming campus environments (Linder et al., 2019). Notably, the end of in loco parentis is tied to the bold actions of students sitting in at a lunch counter in Alabama (Lee, 2014). As the CRM evolved into the Black Power Movement toward the end of the 1960s, Black activists alongside Latino/a/x and Asian Americans fought in solidarity to protest the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War as well as to advocate for Ethnic Studies programs and representative faculty to teach in them (Linder et al., 2019; Rhoads, 1998).…”