Explanation/Example of Combined Effects of Racism and American
IRAC for Lau V Nichols (1974) Explanation/Example of Combined Effects of Racism and American Ideals – Lau v. Nichols
use IRAC for the answer
What Is Irac stand for
I = Issue as a question
R= Rule that apply
A = Analysis , apply the law to the fact of the case. Fact to the law
C = Conclusion, recap show your understand the court decision, not your personal point of view or opinion.
Lau v. Nichols, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on January 21, 1974, ruled (9-0) that, under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a California school district receiving federal funds must provide non-English-speaking students with instruction in the English language to ensure that they receive an equal education. The case centred on the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD), which had nearly 2,900 non-English-speaking students of Chinese ancestry. While approximately 1,000 of those students were provided supplemental classes in English language, the others were not. In the early 1970s the students without access to such instruction, including Kinney Kimmon Lau, filed suit, claiming that the SFUSD violated their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause and Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, colour, or national origin in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. Alan H. Nichols, president of the school board, was named as a respondent. The case came some 20 years after Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954), in which the U.S. Supreme Court relied on the equal protection clause in reasoning that “separate but equal” educational facilities were unconstitutional. In Lau a federal district court in 1973 ruled in favour of the SFUSD. Interpreting Brown as mandating the provision of education on equal terms, the district court concluded that the board did not violate the equal protection clause, because the non-English-speaking students received the same education that was available to all other students in the SFUSD. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Insofar as the SFUSD had not directly or indirectly caused the language deficiencies, the Ninth Circuit found that the requisite discriminatory state action was absent. The court further explained that there were neither constitutional nor statutory mandates requiring the SFUSD to provide special remedial programs to students who were disadvantaged. The case was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on December 10, 1973. The court began its review by noting that, according to the California Education Code, “the mastery of English by all pupils in the schools” is a key state goal. In addition, the code states that students who fail to meet standard proficiency levels of English will not receive a high-school diploma. According to the court, providing all students with the same facilities and curriculum does not mean equal treatment, because non-English-speaking students “are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education.”
The court then focused on Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act. It noted that on several occasions the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare had clarified the section, notably in 1970, when it issued a guideline that specifically imposed upon federally funded school systems the responsibility of rectifying students’ linguistic deficiencies to make instruction accessible for such students. The court thus held that the SFUSD was in violation of Section 601. Having made that ruling, it did not address the equal protection complaint. The decision of the Ninth Circuit was reversed.
Facts of the case
In 1971, the San Francisco, California school system was integrated. As a result, the San Francisco school system absorbed over 2,856 students of Chinese ancestry who were not proficient in English. Of these students, the school system only provided about 1,000 with supplemental English language courses. Classes were taught exclusively in English.
Lau and other students of Chinese descent who did not speak English and received no supplemental English courses brought a class action suit against the officials in the San Francisco Unified School District. The students claimed that the failure to provide supplemental English classes constituted an unequal educational opportunity in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The district court denied relief, holding that the policies of the school system did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment or the Civil Rights Act. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, and a hearing en banc was denied. The students appealed the appellate court’s decision.
Question
Does a school district violate the Fourteenth Amendment or the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it teaches exclusively in English and fails to provide non-English speaking students with any supplemental English language classes?
Conclusion
Yes. Justice William O. Douglas wrote for a unanimous court. The Court determined that the school system’s failure to provide supplemental English language instruction to students of Chinese ancestry who spoke no English constituted a violation of the California Education Code in the SFUSD Handbook and Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it deprived those students of an opportunity to participate in the public education program.
Justice Potter Stewart wrote an opinion concurring with the result, which was joined by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and Justice Harry Blackmun. He discussed the appropriateness of the statutory guidelines mandating affirmative remedial efforts for linguistically deprived children.
Justice Harry Blackmun also wrote an opinion concurring with the result, which was joined by Justice Burger. The justice stressed that 1,800 children were being deprived of meaningful schooling in this matter. He limited the Court’s holding by stating that, if only a few children spoke a language other than English, the Court’s decision would not necessarily require supplemental language instruction.
beyond BROWN pursuing the promise Summary of Lau v. Nichols 1974 In 1971 the San Francisco, California school system was integrated as a result of a federal court decree. Approximately 2,800 Chinese ancestry students in the school system did not speak English. One thousand of these students received supplemental courses in English language, and 1,800 did not receive such instruction. A class action suit was brought by the non-English-speaking Chinese students who did not receive additional instruction against officials responsible for the operation of the San Francisco Unified School District. The students alleged that they were not provided with equal educa- ional opportunities and, therefore, were not being afforded their Fourteenth Amendment rights. The District Court denied relief, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. The basis of the Court of Appeals decision was that every student brings to his or her educational career different advantages and disadvantages based on social, economic, and cultural background, which are factors created separately from the school system. A petition for certiorari was filed, and the United States Supreme Court granted the petition due to the public importance of the issue. The Supreme Court found that the California Education Code required that the English language was the basic language of instruction in all schools, and that it was a policy of the state to ensure the mastery of English by all students in the schools. In addition, the Code required compulsory, full-time education for children between the ages of six and sixteen and required that no student who had not met the standards of proficiency in English would be allowed to graduate in twelfth grade and receive a diploma. In the opinion of the Supreme Court, these state imposed standards did not provide for equality of treatment simply because all students were provided with equal facilities, books, teachers, and curriculum. The Supreme Court did not validate the Equal Protection Clause argument of petitioners, but relied on Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. The San Francisco Unified School District received substantial federal financial assistance, and based on guidelines imposed upon recipients of such funding, school systems must assure that students of a particular race, color, or national origin are not denied the same opportunities to obtain an education generally obtained by other students in the same school system. This guideline was further expanded in 1970 to include that students with language deficiencies were to be afforded the tools necessary to rectify the deficiency. Based on its findings, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for appropriate relief to be granted. Beyond Brown: Pursuing the Promise is available on DVD and VHS. To order, visit www.firelightmedia.org, call 1-800-343-5540 or write Firelight Media, P.O. Box 1084, Harriman, NY 10926
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
